OP
OP
All uphill
Still rolling along
- Location
- Somerset
Tate modern is rubbish? Show us some good art.
- Thread starter All uphill
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Profpointy
Legendary Member
If only he'd got a place in art school he might have done quite well
(if I've guessed correctly)
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
That's exactly the sort of thing the "I know nothing about art but know what I like" brigade regard as the real deal.
And of course it is, but it represents a tiny fraction of the styles and genres that are art.
Punkawallah
Über Member
Cave paintings, Paleolithic man, Chauvet, 30,000BC.
Beebo
Firm and Fruity
- Location
- Hexleybeef
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Ah, a real artist of rhe ort the OP craves.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
But should art be judged on the character of the artist? Wagner seems to have been an anti-semite and all round unpleasant individual, Aubrey Beardsley was molesting his own children, etc etc.
That's not to claim Adolf was a "great artist" but he clearly had at least some ability.
There was an interesting series of programmes presented by Rolf Harris where he tried to emulate the works of many of the great artists. Now Rolf, whatever his other failings, is a far more talented painter than 99.9% of the population so it was quite revealing that he really couldn't emulate their work in most cases.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Good point Prof. Gary Glitter is a filthy pervert, but he still has an active fan club that adore his music (although no under 18 members.) Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?
markemark
Über Member
Of course. And not just art. Great scientific and philosophical achievements have come from both awful people and awful events.
OP
OP
All uphill
Still rolling along
- Location
- Somerset
Good question.
All art comes from a time, place and an artist which can help our understanding of what's in front of us.
Our reaction, imo, often says something about us, too. Why is Aubrey Beardsley's sex life interesting to us more than 100 years later?
Profpointy
Legendary Member
There was an interesting documentary by broadcaster Muriel Gray on some of the extremes of modern art. One exhibit was an "installation" consisting of rotting animal organs hung up in a room. Muriel was clearly retching at one point. It later emerged that the whole programme, including the "art" was in fact a clever parody.
Now if (some) modern art is indistinguishable from a parody, what does that say about its worth? Or perhaps the parody is itself legitimate art in its own right. To be fair, I can accept self parody or things that "challenge the nature of art" or whatever as (potentially) having some merit and / or legitimacy, but once most of it seems to have degenerated into self parody, or "what's the silliest thing we can get away with" I'm inclined to be cynical.
Simply claiming something as being "art" doesn't preclude pretentious rubbish from being an actual thing.
Now that said, I personally like and see value in Jackson Pollack's work, but don't get Rothko at all. I'm reluctant to dismiss Rothko, however tempting, as he is valued by people I respect. In particular there's an amazing piece of "modern" music ( as my wife says "pling plong music") by Morton Feldman inspired by the paintings in the Rothko Chapel. Feldman's music might not be regarded by everyone either but I find it amazing. Clearly the paintings meant something profound to Feldman, so I can't really dismiss them.
View: https://youtu.be/1ZZ0DYIkaP8?feature=shared
Now if (some) modern art is indistinguishable from a parody, what does that say about its worth? Or perhaps the parody is itself legitimate art in its own right. To be fair, I can accept self parody or things that "challenge the nature of art" or whatever as (potentially) having some merit and / or legitimacy, but once most of it seems to have degenerated into self parody, or "what's the silliest thing we can get away with" I'm inclined to be cynical.
Simply claiming something as being "art" doesn't preclude pretentious rubbish from being an actual thing.
Now that said, I personally like and see value in Jackson Pollack's work, but don't get Rothko at all. I'm reluctant to dismiss Rothko, however tempting, as he is valued by people I respect. In particular there's an amazing piece of "modern" music ( as my wife says "pling plong music") by Morton Feldman inspired by the paintings in the Rothko Chapel. Feldman's music might not be regarded by everyone either but I find it amazing. Clearly the paintings meant something profound to Feldman, so I can't really dismiss them.
View: https://youtu.be/1ZZ0DYIkaP8?feature=shared
OP
OP
All uphill
Still rolling along
- Location
- Somerset
A game Ms AU and I play in art galleries is to each chose a picture we'd happily live with every day. I've also done this with friends who say they don't get modern art, but they can easily prefer one image to another.
Another thing we sometimes do is ask each other "what one word" best applies to a painting. It can be revealing. For example I didn't enjoy the castle painting above. The word that came to my mind was "ridgid". No breeze, no movement, no humans. Rather strange.
Another thing we sometimes do is ask each other "what one word" best applies to a painting. It can be revealing. For example I didn't enjoy the castle painting above. The word that came to my mind was "ridgid". No breeze, no movement, no humans. Rather strange.
