Reply to: Its Turner Prize time

[Mich the Tester]

I guess I'm less concerned with labelling as I am with preserving particular meaning in words. It's harder to think when the meaning of words become diluted or confused, and I suppose (i've not really thought about it before) the point of words is to convey thoughts. Fluffy words => fluffy thoughts. Maybe.

Think again;

[SpontaneousOrder]

I don't really see the point of labelling it at all. Mondriaan's work certainly had an effect as part of an aesthetic movement; De Stijl and so he certainly contributed to design and architecture, which you could see as ´applied art´ whereas his paintingss were perhaps ´pure art´. Whether you like the results of that influence is another matter, but I live in a modern house, with modern furnishings and only a few, but very modern ornaments; I can certainly see Mondriaan's ideas in all of that and I like it.

I guess I'm less concerned with labelling as I am with preserving particular meaning in words. It's harder to think when the meaning of words become diluted or confused, and I suppose (i've not really thought about it before) the point of words is to convey thoughts. Fluffy words => fluffy thoughts. Maybe.

[Mich the Tester]

Would you label it as art though? Regardless of whether it was interesting/aesthetically pleasing or not.

I don't really see the point of labelling it at all. Mondriaan's work certainly had an effect as part of an aesthetic movement; De Stijl and so he certainly contributed to design and architecture, which you could see as ´applied art´ whereas his paintingss were perhaps ´pure art´. Whether you like the results of that influence is another matter, but I live in a modern house, with modern furnishings and only a few, but very modern ornaments; I can certainly see Mondriaan's ideas in all of that and I like it.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think if all of these modern artists provided real quality images and gave them a twist like Banksy a lot more people would connect to it.

I suppose this is the concept of modern art, take something that you don't look at and make it beautiful to challenge the viewers idea of beauty and meaning:

The Ray by CHARDIN, Jean-Baptiste-Simon

I sort of understand this :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...soGuernica.jpg

and this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._of_Memory.jpg

Viewing much modern art I imagine Philip Glennister saying 'load of pretentious rubbish we need a proper painting like the Moana Liza'

I'm happier with those kinds of thing. Although Dali is questioning the objectivity of reality, he's not gone as far as removing all allusions to some kind of realness for the sake of some kind of nihilistic purity when it comes to painting.

[SpontaneousOrder]

WHS and Mondriaan too. I dunno why either though.

Would you label it as art though? Regardless of whether it was interesting/aesthetically pleasing or not.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The point of the slit canvas, is questioning the tradition of art on a 2d surface - Fontana was challenging the flat canvas in the same way as Turner was challenging the necessity of versimilitude in his work. It's part of an evolution, and as such probably will still be being talked about in 200 years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Are-You.../dp/0670920495 is worth a read if you're even slightly interested in the whys of modern art - very readable and not at all pretentious. It may not make you like it, but it will make it more interesting.

meh... we had 3 dimensions on a canvas before.

I might give it a read though, because although I don't like the self-destructive nature of modern art, understandign the whys, as you say, might help me clarify the reasons why I like other kinds. I've got 2 weeks on a beach starting next week!

[mudskipper]

WHS and Mondriaan too. I dunno why either though.

A guy on Sunday's ride had a nice Mondrian cycle jersey.

http://www.prendas.co.uk/santini-la-...ng-jersey.html

[Mich the Tester]

Precisely, thankyou.

[Mich the Tester]

I rather like the works of Jackson Pollock.

dunno why.

WHS and Mondriaan too. I dunno why either though.

[mudskipper]

A lot of them sell more 'accessible' works to earn a living. The works they'll sell you if you visit their studio might be the result of several experiments. It's perhaps a bit like the fashion industry; you see thin people wearing wierd clothes on the catwalk, but the stuff that goes into the shops is watered down and made more practical for manufacturers to make it and people to wear it. A good thing, because I'm not 9 stone and I don't want to wear a dress.

[Mich the Tester]

I think if all of these modern artists provided real quality images and gave them a twist like Banksy a lot more people would connect to it.

A lot of them sell more 'accessible' works to earn a living. The works they'll sell you if you visit their studio might be the result of several experiments. It's perhaps a bit like the fashion industry; you see thin people wearing wierd clothes on the catwalk, but the stuff that goes into the shops is watered down and made more practical for manufacturers to make it and people to wear it. A good thing, because I'm not 9 stone and I don't want to wear a dress.

[vetran]

The point of the slit canvas, is questioning the tradition of art on a 2d surface - Fontana was challenging the flat canvas in the same way as Turner was challenging the necessity of versimilitude in his work. It's part of an evolution, and as such probably will still be being talked about in 200 years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Are-You.../dp/0670920495 is worth a read if you're even slightly interested in the whys of modern art - very readable and not at all pretentious. It may not make you like it, but it will make it more interesting.

I think if all of these modern artists provided real quality images and gave them a twist like Banksy a lot more people would connect to it.

I suppose this is the concept of modern art, take something that you don't look at and make it beautiful to challenge the viewers idea of beauty and meaning:

The Ray by CHARDIN, Jean-Baptiste-Simon

I sort of understand this :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...soGuernica.jpg

and this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._of_Memory.jpg

Viewing much modern art I imagine Philip Glennister saying 'load of pretentious rubbish we need a proper painting like the Moana Liza'

[mudskipper]

That'll be the proof of the pudding. Some kinds of art are easier for people to gather around in a mutual tulip-talking 'aren't we so cultured' group wank. Last time I went to the tate modern it was sickening listening to the tulip people managed to say to each other regarding a canvas with a single whole poked through it.

If people are still having the same conversations about that piece in 200 years time then I'll have been wrong. I doubt they will though

That's interesting though, thinking of what some people call 'art' as being part of the art-making process. I could see the attraction of seeing it in the same way you might view some old inventor's prototypes/tinkerings in a museum.

The point of the slit canvas, is questioning the tradition of art on a 2d surface - Fontana was challenging the flat canvas in the same way as Turner was challenging the necessity of versimilitude in his work. It's part of an evolution, and as such probably will still be being talked about in 200 years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Are-You.../dp/0670920495 is worth a read if you're even slightly interested in the whys of modern art - very readable and not at all pretentious. It may not make you like it, but it will make it more interesting.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Multiple wholes would have been quite impressive. The whole ought to be more than the sum of it's parts.

Haha. Damned muscle memory (presumably I type whole more often than hole).




I like this article Why Art Became Ugly | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Individualism | The Atlas Society

It kind of highlights just why modern art (for a lot of people at least) is so uninspiring.

[doodab]

I went to the tate modern it was sickening listening to the tulip people managed to say to each other regarding a canvas with a single whole poked through it.

Multiple wholes would have been quite impressive. The whole ought to be more than the sum of it's parts.