THE BRITISH THREAD

I was only teasin' spends...

You know I'm very fond of you, I'm so happy tonight, come 'ere spends, give us a big kiss, chuck.

x

How big's big?

Does it take hours?

Or is it all over as quick as a shake of a lamb's tail?

Right I'm going for a walk at Dunham Massey.

Dying to hear later how the canary roundup went.

"Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope 'em, throw 'em, brand 'em
Soon we'll be living high and wide...."

Well thank you all for your opinions.
My essay is about 'the arrival of new art through the 20th centuary and the public view point, with attention to modernist painting, and the beginnings of abstraction.'

so basically starting with matisse, going through picasso kandisnky pollock etc. and finishing with Tomma Abts turner prize winner 2006.
Have you got anything dazzlingly witty and clever that I could use as my last paragraph spendy?
Why I wanted other people's opinions is becuse I thought it would be nice to go through older works with references from books, and then Tomma Abts, the current issue with public opinions. Its just no-one seems to have a very profound opinion. I don't mind if your opinion is that you don't like it, it's just it would be usefull if you could explain why.

As with the 'modern art is a pile of wank' issue:
I understand why the public generally don't understand modern art. Modern art has broken the barriers of the preconcieved ideas of what art should be like in order for artists to express themselves fully.
In my opinion, modern art in some ways is better that older art, as instead of drawing you a picture and telling you what you are looking at, it makes you think. The lights turning on and off is a comment on modern life, and because it is so broad, the viewer can contemplate what it is about. It can make you think about themes of, automatic, controll, human invention, the qualities of light and dark, the contrast between false 'light and dark' and 'natural' light and dark.
However, I can understand why some would hate it, as after all it is just lights turning on and off, and anyone can do that. But would you have done?

sent you a PM pentacle. Jackson Pollock, Blue Poles. Huge controvesy here in Oz when it was bought for 1.3 mill recently valued at 40 mill not a bad return on investment.

"The Pentacle Queen"

As with the 'modern art is a pile of wank' issue:
I understand why the public generally don't understand modern art.

It's not that I don't understand it... that's a tad patronising, as disussed before, having a dislike for something does not mean you are devoid of culture.

Modern art has broken the barriers of the preconcieved ideas of what art should be like in order for artists to express themselves fully.

Now this is what I don't understand; what barriers? And who's preconcieved barriers? Not mine. There are many works of art that I admire, particularly Hepworth. Artists have always expressed themselves fully, that's why they are artists.


In my opinion, modern art in some ways is better that older art, as instead of drawing you a picture and telling you what you are looking at, it makes you think. The lights turning on and off is a comment on modern life, and because it is so broad, the viewer can contemplate what it is about. It can make you think about themes of, automatic, controll, human invention, the qualities of light and dark, the contrast between false 'light and dark' and 'natural' light and dark.

You simply cannot say Modern art is better than 'old art'. I'm aware that the light turning off and on is a comment on modern life, what else could it be? Sitting in front of a Van Gogh will make you think and reflect, but then Van Gogh is 'modern art'. But there is no reason to sit in front of an unmade bed and reflect on another woman's life and past relationships, I have them of my own, why should Emin's be more significant than mine? What is it saying to me? Absolutely nothing. What is it saying about class and elitism? Shed loads, to use the vernacular.


However, I can understand why some would hate it, as after all it is just lights turning on and off, and anyone can do that. But would you have done?

Yes, I would have, of course not in the same way but given the opportunity to go to Art school, as was my leaning, instead of having to work for a living from the age of 15, as were most of my working class contemporaries (we are talking women here), so no, not everybody CAN do that. Like I said art is about class and elitism, pure and simple.

I have been involved in the arts in a practical way, from bookbinding to jewellery, won a national prize for design, and produced (forgive the self appreciation) beautiful things. But then had to go to work as a jobbing jeweller, and that's poorly paid, buggers your hands up, and it's most frustrating working to anothers designs.

All the above is just my very humble opinion and means nothing.

x

Ok. I completely understand if you have a dislike for it, because it is a matter of personal taste, and it is my misinerpetation of what everyone has been saying, as no-one really given an in-depth opinion on it before on the thread, so I just presumed that no one had one.
My mistake.



Have artists expressed themselves fully? In the past, I am sure that some haven't. Don't forget that artists need to eat, why do you think so many of them died in poverty, they became famous, then pushed the boundaries of art to try and express themselves further (e.g. rembrant) then everyone said 'this isn't art, this is a monstrosity!' and didn't pay them.
People do have preconcieved barriers of what art is, look at critics such as Clement greenburg, talking of 'high art' and 'low art' all the time.
If people dont have preconcieved ideas about what art is then why do we get the'modern art isn't really art' arguments.


I didn't say that, I said in some ways, I think it is better.


In this case, your opinion is that you don't like modern art because you don't see it's relevence? Fair enough.



You mean that not everyone has a chance to make an instillation about a light turning on and off.
But what I meant was, anyone canmake a light turn on and off. Providing you have a light, of course.

Like wise, all this is just my humble opinion too. Its nice to have a good debate about such a subject.

I am intrested on your opinion that art is about elitism.

pq xxxxxxxxxxxx

PQ,

I fully accept your premise that artists suffered in the past, and died in poverty. But we live in a different age now, artists are much less likely (apart from a few notable exceptions) to incur the wrath of the establishment. This has more to do with the press and access to information, than the struggle to express oneself. There are no 'starving' artists nowadays, we have (albeit eroded dreadfully during the Thatcher years) an education system that provides grants and bursaries, artists can sucessfully combine work and art, as I said, my brother in law is an artist of some merit, regularly exibits and is head of the art department of a well known college. He has a middle class lifestyle, yet still fully expresses himself artistically.

This wouldn't have happened without the welfare state, universal suffrage, National Health etc...

It may be a simple argument, but it has relevance, society has evolved and progressed, you cannot use the experience of artists that have gone before as a premise for a debate as to why there is a failure of 'recognition' of what is art by some sections of society today. I and most others, simply would not have had access to rembrants art, or the ability to express an opinion, remember he was derided by the establishment, not by the general public of the day, also his peers, but then his peers would be fellow artists and not the proletariat. Along with the perceived struggle to express something new through art, there was a certain lifestyle around artists of those days, people can live an 'alternative' lifestyle today, without (generally) incurring the derision of the public. It's like showing a peasant a rembrant, after he/she has done a 14 hour day in servitude and asking "is this not beautiful?' It's not that they don't recognise it, it just has no relevance to them, their bed is beautiful, a meal on the table is beautiful, the fact that someone has chosen to produce it, spent time (which is a luxury afforded the elite) producing it, is seen as indulgence, not beauty.

I'm interested in this subject, but i fear I do not have the education or articulacy to debate effectively on the subject. Spends is your man. Also, as a woman, my opinion still matters very little in the grand scheme of things, particularly in the patriarchal world of the arts. I'm just glad that you are a female about to enter that world.

'scuse sp, I'm in a hurry...

x

yikes:
I'm really surprised at your attitude. I never even concider that fact I'm female to be a barrier.

I don't suppose it is anymore...

But then I'm very old.

x

Missed this one Mac!

It's NEXT Sunday, though I spoke to Norman today.

x

My new gaff!

Ignore the date.

[/IMG]

Wow!

It looks superb!

Halls adjoining means you can make a bit more noise in the living room without disturbing the neighbours, and vice versa, of course.

I'm not really that noisy!

x

Pentacle Queen wrote



I think it's about elitism in that the elite can afford to buy art and the elite have more leisure time at their disposal in which to enjoy art.

Yes, rich, leisured people can study art and acquire works of art, and create works of art if they have talent, but I do not think it can be said to be relevant only to them.

Many of the most important painters of history were very poor, at least at the beginning of their careers.
L S Lowry never had much money, I believe.

Modern BritArt is not something that Lowry would have recognised as art.

Damien Hirst's pickled animals are a curiosity to be sure, but to me they are no more than that.
To me the "art" arising from that is the reams of fanciful guff that get written about it, and the imagined relevances which are attributed to it.

No offence.

You need to get around to defining art.

Is it mimesis?

Is it a reproduction of the world or an idea in images?

Is is an attempt to convey to others a mental state?

Is it an attempt to conjure a feeling in the viewer of something ineffable.

What defines one thing as art and another thing not?

Modern art, as it is called, rejects representation of reality and sees art as "significant form" or the expression of emotion beyond the ability of words.

These reduce, remove even, any relation to reality and institute aesthetic considerations of the object and connections between the object and the psychology of its creator or its consumer without any reference to use in living.

Simply exhibiting an object in a formal setting can be considered art.

An unmade bed exhibited in a gallery is not an unmade bed. It is an arrangement of materials for no use. It has to be for no use otherwise how is it differentiated from supermarket shelves and window displays.

Is art the display of physical dexterity?

Is ornament art?

There is an institutional definition of art by which the only common feature defining objects as art is that they are recognised as such by certain institutions.

The Gordon's Gin Promotion Drive (Turner) recognises as art that which is serviceable to its uses and outraging public sensibilities and hyping up controvesy does that.

Even educational institutions define art as it suits them to define it and for them to have a subject. Others might see such things as work avoidance schemes or occupational therapy or processes for delaying entry into the labour market or job creation schemes.

Elites and classes can use agreed definitions of art to maintain their separation from others and it is natural they choose objects which others wouldn't and invent rhetorical devices which supports their exclusivity and, presumably, superiority.

But history decides what is art. Nothing can be defined as art until it has stood the test of time in the public domain.

Real art is concerned with the Prime Symbol of a culture handled with skill and a consciousness on the part of the artist of that task and of its "religious" function. What is art in Soviet Russia compared to the art of the Chinese or Greek Classical styles or those of aboriginal populations.

The Prime Symbol of our culture is infinite space and light and the loneliness and yearning of the ego which accompanies that and to which we owe our civilisation.

An in depth opinion Queenie would take more room that the whole site has.

I recommend you read Spengler's Decline of the West but it is something of an undertaking. He would have seen the Turner Prize as a sign that we have peaked. At least there is some "depth" in that work.

It is even possible that art colleges and Art's Councils and Art Correspondents are all distractions from art itself.

Andy Warhol said that money is the ONLY art. The bigger the pile the better the art. I incline that way. Picasso was the richest painter who ever lived and probably ever will. And he has fantastic skill. He said he could draw like Rapheal before he could speak and that it took half a lifetime to learn how to draw like a child.

Whenever I'm asked what I am looking at I always say "the light patterns". What else is there?

Since no-one has leapt to refute this in gallant and timely manner (whatever could they have been thinking?) I'll just say fie, dear lady, never let it be said, for compared to some here you are yet in your green and salad days, a mere strip of a girl. Er, stripling.

Of course I have another theory which I'm afraid I can't explain on a family thread but it involves only male artists. Females being the subject.

I have just noticed that The Grauniad is involved as well as Gordon's Gin.

Oh Lord. What can one say. The Grauniad knows as much about art as last week's socks.