Paging Ivan Reid

Ben Blaney says...

To Tracey Emin, that's 3 million quid in the bank.

 

You actually don't know anything about it, do you?

 

Art is more than definition.

 

That's not what she said. Not in the article posted, anyway.

 

Chris Ofili, you philistine ****.

 

Oh no.

 

darsy says...

I'm quite blissfully ignorant of this kind of thing. A pile of elephant
shit is not art, it's a pile of elephant shit and worth exactly what it
would cost to buy in as such from a zoo.

Posts like your's show me just who the pretentious fuckers around here
are. I'm not a philistine, I'm a fucking realist who sees this garbage
for what it really is.

 

OK, let's get back to basics.

Do you know what Murex is, for example?

Do you have any idea where most dyes/pigments come from?

On another level, do you understand symbolism at all?

Why am I bothering?

 

Because he hasn't said "I think it's shit but I don't really give a ****"
and therefore you think it's possible to point out where he's going wrong so
he can reevaluate it all or make him admit that he doesn't give a ****.
Everyone has an opinion, even about things they can't or won't understand;
and therefore have an emotional reaction to things for the wrong reasons, in
this case thinking something is shit because it's incomprehensible, when
really it's shit because the perpetrator is condecending to the crowd, which
is a couple of levels higher than just not looking pretty.

Still he's a nice enough bloke. Bit foreign for my liking, mind.

 

Porl says...

I do give a ****. It riles me that these people pass themselves off as
artists. They're nothing better than the people who followed the carnis
back in the old days selling miracle cures and snake oils. If they were
selling a product, the cunts would have Trading Standards breathing down
their necks.

You don't need to be an intellectual to understand what shite is. it
appears that not being as clever as some has given me a very different
viewpoint on such things. For example, I don't take in the bullshit
about how wonderful something painted in elephant shit is, or the
alleged symbolism of an unmade bed. To me, a tent with the names of all
the people who've fucked the owner is not art. It's something a student
does on holiday.

I spoke to someone about this whole subject tonight, the modern art
syndrome if you like. I came to the conclusion that modern artists are a
bunch of piss-taking cunts. No artist can be good until they are dead.
Take Miss Emin, for example. Some pretentious fuckwit paid her a
shedload of money for something that no-one but herself could
understand, so she gets a name for being a 'top artist' and revered by
the critics. She sells another piece on the back of that and makes a
fortune. She then thinks to herself "This is piss easy, I can turn out
any old load of wank, pass it off as a work of art and die rich".

I propose a law that states that no artist can sell their work. Money
can only change hands after the artist has died. Lets see who'd be
prepared to pay 3 million for an unmade bed with pizza boxes then.

I'm pleased. It's not good to be liked by too many people, especially
artists.

 

And therein lies the issue. You're not supposed to like everything, find it
pretty, appreciate the labour involved, etc. Many movements in art have been
ridiculed and reviled only later to become milestones. Art can't be taken
out of context, if it is then it is the most subjective level. It's a
reflection of the state of the art world and in turn its interpretation of
the world itself. And that has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
So by just saying somethign is "shite" you're missing the point which is why
it's better to simply say "I don't give a shit". Everything has meaning in
the art world, which means nothing does. Which is why all art is brilliant
or all art is shite.

 

Only 10%?
--
O
1 Black, shortly to undergo extensive surgery.
1 Red, undergoing lightweight surgery. -----
1 Blue, for Power-Ranger baiting. | o |
Numbers ... | o |
Stuff ... | ooo |
Life ... -----

 

Just to add my two-pennorth - the only art worth considering as such
is something that looks good - if there's symbolism and deep hidden
meaning then fine, so be it, but if it looks shite it is shite,
regardless of the artist's meaning and emotions.

Of course there's a degree of subjectivity about what looks good,
which is another question entirely, but where something crosses the
line, IMO, is where it's not even attempting to be aesthetically
appealing in it's own right. The unmade bed is a perfect example of
this.

 

you're exactly right - I'll stop.

Lozzo or Chris Ofili?

 

what bollocks.

 

more shite.

define "good" in this context - do you mean "pretty" or "powerful" or
"striking"? For example, Bosch's work doesn't tend to "look good" - it
looks fucking frightening. Great art, though.

many artists - and I'm thinking of the likes of H.R.Giger here -
attempt the opposite of aesthetically pleasing - it's still art.

 

There is no bad art, that's my point.

 

beauty - eye - beholder
ring any bells?

 

porl says...

<fx:wanders into thread late>

So by your definition there's no good art either, just art. Doesn't that
make the work of an art critic a wee bit tricky.

 

mups wrote in

No. Some people like to be told what art/food/whatever they are allowed to
like. We're back to the commodification of culture that I mentioned
earlier.