0
   

Annoying Art, Or Not? (new images added)

 
 
Vivien
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 02:59 am
yes I'm with the general opinion on the trees - the owner who wanted to cut them down was an idiot! but what was the artist doing painting on someone else's land anyway? I prefer my forests to be unpainted

I do like the She Who Watches - the colours work with the landscape, though of course it may have been brighter originally.

Goldworthy isn't heavy handed with his landscape work, it is subtle and gels with its sourroundings and is usually temporary and makes no permanent, major, domineering changes. Unlike most conceptual art it is beautiful and fragile and I love it.

Wrapped islands etc do nothing for me and the tampons are on a par with Tracey Emin's unmade bed and tent embroidered with the names of everyone she'd every slept with - boring and gross
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:19 am
Andy Goldworthy has this, which reminds me of the painted trees. I like it. I wish that the colors used in the Painted Forest colors had been temporary.

http://cgee.hamline.edu/see/goldsworthy/gold_treesoul_thum.jpg

The display of feminine objects doesn't seem like a feminist statement, to me. I'm a feminist and I'm horrified at the thought. To me, it is a display of anger, rebellion and anarchy. If a man did a similarly gross piece, would we say that's a male-thing? No. Someone would call it conceptual body fluids and probably give him the Turner Prize. <ugh>
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:35 am
exactly...
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:01 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/15/1100384500647.html

So what do people think about this?
I wish I could have a look at it to decide.
Has anyone seen any of Cy Twombly's work in the flesh?
I have no real concept sometimes though, of how much something should be bought for.

I hope people can see this for a while.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 06:21 pm
Actually, I very much like this triptych of Twombly. A lot of his stuff I don't like, but sometimes his scribbles and very subtle coloring is profoundly aesthetic. I've never seen his work "in person."
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:53 am
yes, I thought it looked interesting in the photo - but is it worth that much money?
What is money in the end anyway?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:57 am
Oh, no, I am going to have to look up Twombly, who I admit to having heard of for decades. I don't know, right this minute, if I have seen his work, or if I did, I'd recognize it.
Stay tuned...
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:02 am
it is like that young girl a few years ago who was hailed as the next Picasso and was selling painting for millions... what happened to her?
It is all just hype in the end.
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:03 am
to add a subnote to that, I wish I was paid a few million (or even one)... for a piece of work.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:05 am
Luckily I missed that one, or else I've jumped to forget it
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:06 am
easy to miss I feel.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:22 am
I can guess a few people that might have been.

ah, back to annoying or not.

I'll gird my lovely loins for links on annoying,
soon, soon.
0 Replies
 
smog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:30 am
bookmark...

(I bookmark a lot.)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:45 am
Hi, smog...
0 Replies
 
smog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:46 am
Don't mind me; I have nothing productive to add.
0 Replies
 
Vivien
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:11 am
Jack Vettriano is one whose work I find usually really repellent and yet occasionally, against my will some are strangely attractive. Very very commercial and he also does a lot of porno/sado stuff. Some of his earlier work was like film stills and had a real edge of menace to it. He makes obsecenely high prices - our equivalent of your favourite hate-subject Kincaid.

He apparently uses local prostitutes for his models and the men are himself - much glamourised! he is not a looker!

typical commercial one:

http://www.jigboxx.com/jps/ag/ag00002.jpg
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:17 am
dear me that is a bit egotistical!

I am searching my brain for something annoying now that I have egotistical in my mind. That is an easy one.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 10:10 am
benconservato wrote:
yes, I thought it looked interesting in the photo - but is it worth that much money?
What is money in the end anyway?


I'd be so proud of my three year old if he or she had painted it. A six-year old, I'd be worried about. However, to pay 1.5 million for each of those... no. No. NO!!!!

Money, in the end, is power and status and the ability to purchase all the paints and canvases we want. We all wish we had some, even to keep locked up for that awful rainy day.


Vivien -- I am strangely drawn to that painting, but if you say the guy is as annoying as Kincaid <shudder> then I truly believe you. Kincaid. besides having drearily pathetic subjects, doesn't even paint his noxious works... he has "studios" all over.
0 Replies
 
benconservato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:03 pm
don't you love people that have "art-slaves".
It sh*ts me.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 04:23 pm
Few painters, and their paintings, annoy me as much as Jeff Koons.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:03:09