ART - not just pretty pics
- Thread starter Pat494
- Start date
The Monet exhibition at the Sainsbury Wing is well worth visiting. Some of the pictures are exhilarating,
joyful. Not too busy if you go at lunch time. It ends on the 29th and you can book online.
joyful. Not too busy if you go at lunch time. It ends on the 29th and you can book online.
What is art?
I like this test: Could I, with no expertise, talent, training or skill, have produced what I am looking at? If the answer is 'yes' then I do not consider it to be art.
I also like this story (urban fiction?) concerning the assessment of art by experts:
An artist's work of a sculptured head was offered to the Royal Academy for their summer exhibition and he was notified that it had been accepted. Needing to be displayed in a particular way it had therefore been dispatched with a display cradle not unlike a stylised dumbbell. At the exhibition our artist was somewhat surprised to find that it was the cradle on display because the judges mistakenly thought that two items had been submitted and they therefore chose the best and rejected the other. Maybe they were right ................
I like this test: Could I, with no expertise, talent, training or skill, have produced what I am looking at? If the answer is 'yes' then I do not consider it to be art.
I also like this story (urban fiction?) concerning the assessment of art by experts:
An artist's work of a sculptured head was offered to the Royal Academy for their summer exhibition and he was notified that it had been accepted. Needing to be displayed in a particular way it had therefore been dispatched with a display cradle not unlike a stylised dumbbell. At the exhibition our artist was somewhat surprised to find that it was the cradle on display because the judges mistakenly thought that two items had been submitted and they therefore chose the best and rejected the other. Maybe they were right ................
I like this test: Could I, with no expertise, talent, training or skill, have produced what I am looking at? If the answer is 'yes' then I do not consider it to be art.
I also like this story (urban fiction?) concerning the assessment of art by experts:
An artist's work of a sculptured head was offered to the Royal Academy for their summer exhibition and he was notified that it had been accepted. Needing to be displayed in a particular way it had therefore been dispatched with a display cradle not unlike a stylised dumbbell. At the exhibition our artist was somewhat surprised to find that it was the cradle on display because the judges mistakenly thought that two items had been submitted and they therefore chose the best and rejected the other. Maybe they were right ................
What about an artist who copies and original and the actual result are two identical paintings which only an expert eye or use of science can tell them apart!
How would you rate those two items?
A simple folk like me would settle for the fake (and BTW that would imply a fake knockdown price also!) and enjoy looking at it every day. No doubt I would subsequently enjoy it considerably less if I had paid a non-fake price. So if you're going to spend a lot of dosh you need to be pretty careful – same as trading big-time really.
But the test still works ok: I wouldn't be able to produce either and therefore they're both art – some of the master forgers are pretty clever guys, and of course we don't know about the bit of the iceberg below the waterline. So it would be just a question of what your acquisition purpose is – and that's where the collectors get hung up. If you like what you buy and you can afford it then there's no problem.
There are some entertaining YouTube videos exposing "the Emperor's new clothes" of the art world but unfortunately some of them are the views of people whose judgement goes along with their evenly balanced personality – i.e. a chip on both shoulders!
Just a thought – should we apply the "is it art?" test to politicians? I wonder how many of them would qualify?
I loved the clip in Crocodile Dundee (which I can't find a link to sorry) where...I like this test: Could I, with no expertise, talent, training or skill, have produced what I am looking at? If the answer is 'yes' then I do not consider it to be art.
I also like this story (urban fiction?) concerning the assessment of art by experts:
An artist's work of a sculptured head was offered to the Royal Academy for their summer exhibition and he was notified that it had been accepted. Needing to be displayed in a particular way it had therefore been dispatched with a display cradle not unlike a stylised dumbbell. At the exhibition our artist was somewhat surprised to find that it was the cradle on display because the judges mistakenly thought that two items had been submitted and they therefore chose the best and rejected the other. Maybe they were right ................
Art Expert admiring spotty disaster in the Tate exclaims " Jackson Pollock ".
Paul Hogan happens to be standing next to him for a moment replies " Nah it's not that bad mate"
Hi smini',
I'm sorry to tell you that your test has a fatal flaw! Without any expertise, talent, training or skill - how are you going to be able to determine whether or not you could produce whatever it is that you're looking at?
One of the hardest things for any artist to do is to produce work that looks as if no expertise, talent, training or skill has gone into making it. To some extent, the French painter Jean Dubuffet devoted his career in pursuit of this goal, wanting to imbue his work with the same innocence and naivety that one would expect from a 5 year old child. The catch 22 for such artists is that they first have to have the formal training and learn all the skills and techniques etc. in order to then 'unlearn' them as mature artists. There is no better example of this than Picasso, whose ability and talent was beyond remarkable. Look at what he was producing as a boy in his early teens - it's quite extraordinary. Even Pat would be impressed! Yet, you'd never know it by just by looking at some of his later work produced as a mature artist.
Tim.
When I go to a modern art gallery and look at a wall of paintings from afar there are always one or two that scream out from the pack. When I get closer I find that they are inevitably Picasso’s. So whatever he unlearned from his terrific early work - boy in blue series, for example, with or without horse - it wasn’t about the power of the piece.
It is my NOT so humble view that Picasso showed promise in his early works and went downhill later to produce rubbish. Assiduously copied by 2nd rate copycats trying it on. Once he had the adulation and huge prices he knew the suckers would buy anything he produced.
Rubbish is rubbish regardless of whatever the lineage, provenance or time.
Sounds like even smini could sell you some daubs ?
But each to his own quality.
Last edited:
im a big fan of abstract expressionism ........completely out there ...no rules no boundaries ....................complete marmite as a style to art lovers
saw an enormous Pollock at the moma a few years back ......incredible ...or a big mess on the wall to others..............
although a $50m mess as i remember valuations at the time .........
N
saw an enormous Pollock at the moma a few years back ......incredible ...or a big mess on the wall to others..............
although a $50m mess as i remember valuations at the time .........
N
its all marmite as ive already stated .....and its about being first with the idea , shape or style ...the rest are followers and nowhere ......(so like anything in life)
but must admit picassos stuff is not on my list ............I repect it ....but cant get on with most of it ....especially the more complex works
N
I have to say that I did think about that but decided that in my case, the test would still be appropriate. Of course, whenever I go to view art I always take my portable drawing/Windsor & Newton water paints/pencils & crayons kit with me
and I can authoritatively tell you that I cannot reproduce anything that looks like the original. The only artistic area where I have succeeded in this is in the DIY genre where, out of necessity, I'm now quite competent at repairing/reproducing Artex-patterned ceilings! But I do agree with you about artists making pictures look as if they'd been done without any expertise et cetera. That's what makes a picture good for me – it just looks "right" and the mind thinks "well, isn't that a nice reproduction of that scene". Meanwhile the subconscious thinks "hmmm ...... that scene looks nice and simple and straightforward, surely it can't be that difficult – if he can do it why couldn't I with a bit of training and practice?" And then reality kicks in
I suppose the same sort of thinking might apply to the world's famous traders and Market Wizards – don't we all start out thinking we can do the same with a bit of study and practice?
Last edited:
Hi Pat,
Well, without wishing to cast aspersions on smini's artistic abilities, I would be happy to engage in the following test. Actually, it can apply to anyone - not just smini'. . .
1. Pick an artist that you think is rubbish, devoid of any artistic merit or skill. One whose work you think you could equal with ease.
2. You do your version of their inane crap and then insert it among real paintings by that artist.
3. With the exception of some minimalist and conceptual artists (think Carl Andre's 'Equivalent VIII'), I'll pick out your painting from the real Pollock, Picasso, Dubuffet - or whichever artist you choose.
The slight problem with this test is that it may prove difficult to get your fake Pollock (or whoever) in a gallery along side the genuine paintings. So, I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it that I'd be able to pick out your impostor piece every time - in no time at all!
Tim.