Art

girl2

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

i. Run a hot bath, complete with scented bubble bath, and light some candles.

ii. Pour a snifter of Courvoisier and slip beneath the bubbles, taking in the scent as the cognac breathes.

iii. Sip the cognac and slip deeper into the warmth so that the water is up to your shoulders.

iv. Once the drink is gone you can sink lower into the water and take in the scent of the bath once more.

v. Finish the bath with a cold shower and dry yourself thoroughly with a fluffy towel.

vi. Place hot water bottle at the end of your bed and allow the heat to radiate throughout.

vii. Look out bedroom window for a few minutes, watching the rain spatter against the glass and on the road outside.

viii. Slip into bed and enjoy the warmth for a moment.

ix. Select your book and lie back enjoying it as sleep slowly approaches.

x. As your eyes get heavy turn off the lights and recline fully, listening to the rain on the window.

xi. Sleep.

You're welcome.

Did you mean to create a new thread for this?

Sounds lush btw.

Snowie

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Art
Not Art
Art
Not Art
Art
Not Art
Art
Not Art

so what merits art in those pictures? also that typography was awful!

Deus Ex Machina

girl2 wrote: »

Did you mean to create a new thread for this?

No, it's art.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

No what I said was that they can do so because they have the knowledge and experience about art to be able to make a statement from such a simplistic piece of art.

We can't
Arts funny that way.

What do you mean "We"? Am I somehow not qualified to judge a piece of work now?
It's a black square - no amount of experience or knowledge makes it anything else.
Do you know what makes a great piece - knowledge of perspective, shadow, drawing from life, a talent for a play on colour work, an indepth understanding about line weight, how to create the illusion of emotion, how to plan the placing of characters or objects to draw the eye around a piece, to create a story - to make the viewer follow a path around the piece and much much more.

If a person has any understanding or knowledge of even a fraction of these fundamentals of art and creation they would know that a black square takes neither knowledge nor experience - it takes sales tactics and knowing people with money who see you as something that will make them money.

endacl

That Black Square, is loike, sooo passe, so 1915.

Now, if you painted a big black square on the floor, got a cow to take a dump in the centre, dead centre mind, and rolled around in it wearing a wetsuit and a dickie bow, on your dickie, then that would be loike totally loike ort. And all the more orty because plebs wouldn't get it...

donegal_road

am I allowed to post one of my own?

my art

rainbowtrout

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

No, it's art.

Are you going to put your bath of now cold water, along with an empty glass and a soggy towel thrown on the ground on display and say it's the complement to Tracy Emin's bed?

endacl

donegal_road wrote: »

am I allowed to post one of my own?

my art

Now, that I can like...;-)

marty1985

donegal_road wrote: »

am I allowed to post one of my own?

my art

That's quite nice, I could live with that.

Personally, I hate most of the abstract rubbish that passes for art these days, but that's just me. However, for all the stick he got, I have seen a couple Kevin Sharkey paintings that I could stare at for ages. There's something therapeutic in some abstract work, even if it's just colours "thrown" at a canvas, even if I can't understand it or attempt to explain it.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

And when you have those skills you can choose not to use them to make just as effective a statement. That's why we can't do the same because we lack those skills.




I could do a black square. However my black square would not be art as I do not have the knowledge and experience to make a statement with my art - it's just simple because I am a crap artist.

Oh there you go with that "We" word again. I, as it happens, don't lack those skills.
Oh! Wait! What? Someone with artistic skill, knowledge and experience calling BS on this crapola - that's insane! Who would have thought it?!:rolleyes:

My name is URL

I remember seeing a documentary about some autistic savant that painted the whole interior of his home with some of the most intrinsic and complicated images you could imagine. He did it continuously over decades, and painted over the stuff he had created just two days before, every day, because he would run out of space. He never saw himself as an 'artist' either.. I remember thinking to myself that if he had done it all on canvas instead them he would probably be the most prolific and highest earning living artist that the world has ever known.. but then again, would he? He'd probably only be some guy making a painstaking and mostly unfruitful go at life because the stuff he was doing just wouldn't seem as extraordinary any more.

It's a weird and shallow auld world.. and most of it lies with the people buying into it.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

Well if you are a world class artist then fair enough, good to have you on boards.
If not then "we" is meant to cover you too.

Don't put me in with you - I'm plenty qualified, respected and known in the art world to call something like this BS.

Sir Gallagher

Dean09 wrote: »

Am I the only one who can't stand all this modern "art" shíte? It all looks like crap to me, and yet it sells for thousands and thousands of dollars in modern art museums.

This is art.

This is fúcking amazing art.

Meanwhile this..... is a sheep in a box. Seriously. A sheep in a fúcking box. Are you having a laugh?!?!

And it seems to be just enjoyed by hipsters and extraordinarily wealthy tossers who sit there staring at a canvas covered in scribbles, that if you did in art class in school they'd think you were retarded and send you to the special class. And they stroke their chins and say it's "an amazing piece that really speaks to you" or some shít like that.
I'm gonna take a shít in my shoe and give it a hippy name and sell it to some toffee-nosed wanker for a million quid.

So am I right, and it's all crap? Or am I just an un-cultured bollox?

SteoL wrote: »

That second pic of the cliffs is fucking deadly. Yeah I can be left scratching my head at some of the things that pass for art in recent years.

I actually think stuff like that is sh1t and cheesy.

"Wow it's like cliffs in the middle of the road...oh hey look there's a sale on in Penny's".

StupidLikeAFox

Domo230 wrote: »

I could do a black square. However my black square would not be art as I do not have the knowledge and experience to make a statement with my art - it's just simple because I am a crap artist, not because I am capable of making a statement.

So I could draw a black square, and some other guy could draw a black square - yet his means more than mine because he's had different life experiences?

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

Fair enough. Plenty of respected artists who think otherwise.

Really? Amazingly I don't know any - but then again I don't spend much time with the pretend artist crowd- I mainly travel amongst the circles where the artists work hard at their art and strive to perfect their techniques. Not much work or technique needed for a black square. Gives the people who travel in those circles much more socialising time I would imagine.

ballsymchugh

it's turner prize time of the year again. can't wait for it to be over so that we don't hear about the 'artists' ever again.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

So anyone who has a different opinion of it must be a pretend artist including everyone who made the artist internationally recognised?

Yes. I can't even believe people buy into this. Fair play to the artist - laughing all the way to the bank!:pac:

Logical Fallacy

Snowie wrote: »

so what merits art in those pictures? also that typography was awful!

The ones I called art inspire me. The other ones don't.

That's pretty much my personal cut off point and I don't worry about the classification of what is and isn't art beyond that point.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

It happens in most things in life - from sports to business - the actions of an experienced person with knowledge are more valuable than if someone else does the exact same thing.

I believe it applies to art too and "buy into it" as do many others.

What are you even talking about?? What knowledge or experience?? You are talking nonsense!

The King of Moo

This thread has now become a work of art.

*leans back, squints, makes frame with fingers*

Logical Fallacy

Domo230 wrote: »

Well it depends on the field. Since we are talking art it would be artistic theory for knowledge and experience would be having created many works using that knowledge.

Nah, i don't really get that. Damien Hirst has knowledge and experience yet his work does nothing for me.

I've seen work from young artists in their early days of creativity that has moved me.

Experience etc means nothing to me.

It's all about the end result.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

Well it depends on the field. Since we are talking art it would be artistic theory for knowledge and experience would be having created many works using that knowledge.

So someone reads a book on artistic theory or does a course or whatever and then paints lets say twenty black squares maybe one or two pink ones - by your logic they are both knowledgeable and experienced and this somehow makes them awesome and not at all someone chancing their arm?

Give over.:pac:

marty1985

The King of Moo wrote: »

This thread has now become a work of art.

*leans back, squints, makes frame with fingers*

Hmm. I think it needs one more post, by me. That's it. Perfect.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

That's fine

There are few things as subjective as art and what everyone enjoys in it will be different.

Although if you are saying that experience means nothing to you then should artists bother practicing? Is art the one area of human life where practice does not improve the end result?

Those young artists you really love may be incredibly experienced, having spent thousands of hours honing their craft.

Personally, I believe when someone uses the cop out of art being "subjective" and then goes on to celebrate people who take the p**s and produce BS work - then it does a great disservice to people who have spent hours studying and honing their skills.

Logical Fallacy

Domo230 wrote: »

That's fine

There are few things as subjective as art and what everyone enjoys in it will be different.

Although if you are saying that experience means nothing to you then should artists bother practicing? Is art the one area of human life where practice does not improve the end result?

Those young artists you really love may be incredibly experienced, having spent thousands of hours honing their craft.

Practice will improve technique, but art is more than technique. Personally my art is music, photography, painting, writing. I do all of the most days...the practice makes me more technically proficient but the end result may be better technically, but it may not be better art.

Lets say I am working on an orchestral piece....the lows are finely crafter, perfectly EQ'd, compressed to perfection and the balance across the whole piece in perfect. This is technically a great job...but perhaps if I had written it too years ago the lows would be too big in the mix, maybe distorted.

Now, depending on the emotional timbre of the piece the later part could work better...maybe the tone is sad, the untamed lows merely represent the strength of that emotion. So it's better art depending on your understanding of the theme of the piece, but not as technically proficient.

As for the last part, they are not incredibly experience, as i said, they were at the start of their creative journey, a few had picked up a pencil or paint brush merely a couple of months prior...but they had something strong to say...and it shone through.

Sir Gallagher

I think this would be a good example of the arguement,

http://kristoff.web.elte.hu/UploadArtsAut10/Thumbs/Pollock1.jpg

now you'll always find someone who says "ah sure i could have done that, it's only a bunch of lines a splashes", when in reality they couldn't do it and if they attempted anything like it, it would mean nothing because all they intended to do was draw a bunch of lines and splashes.

LH Pathe

I appreciate artists but theyre such a wide demograph, from van gough to fifty cent.

Just give me old style of paintings that reveal emselves as a complex amalgmation of brush strokes I can mosey up to and appreciate. don't like the hipster cheats like pollock and warhol

saa

Ah cut the average Irish contemporary artist some slack they spend their time working a second job, spending nights working on proposals, filling up accountancy ledgers rather than studios with work and even if they do get into their studio work they lose out from not being able to run the business as such and keep their profile up and opportunities coming in~, going to events trying to make and cling onto contacts to get any scraps going.. its not very conducive to being able to give the time and focus to develop your work further so I'm not sure what all this experience or knowledge is about though, the gubberment pays for ridiculous amounts of students to become artists each year and if college didnt affect your creativity from the pressures of assimilating then life outside will so honestly what are people expecting, if youre working as an artist in the industry you cannot do things that would constitute them a good artist according to AH, horrible industry based on its treatment of workers and opportunities to progress but some nice genuine avenues in it.

marty1985

Inspired by this thread and a few beers I just put a joke bid on Edvard Munch's The Scream for 120 million dollars! And I got it.

Pedant

Contemporary art:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyXggq-dvu0

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

By experience i would mean thousands of hours, being capable of painting what by traditional standards is considered a good painting, having a good knowledge of painting theory and the meta of how art has progressed.

Then I think they would be skilled enough able to make a statement with a black square.


(I get kinda philosophical/Zen here so bear with me)
It's like watching a master martial artist spar with a beginner- he may look like he is not doing much fighting and to the untrained eye may appear worse than the beginner who is really exerting themselves but he is not doing much because due to his training he is so knowledgeable that he knows not only how to strike but when to strike and doesn't have to do much to take out the beginner.


That's my opinion and many people share the same. TBH I am starting to think you are just trying to antagonise me with your use of language. I have my views and have been defending them while you use increasing inflammatory language.

If you believe that that's what the artist is doing - That's fine and you can do that.
I know it isn't at all what they have done and I see chancers all the time in my line of work and I know the realities of what a great sales team can achieve.

Perhaps if we were to view it in another sense - it is the sales team that are the true artists here - they have spun an artist complete with such a convincing back story and ready made respect that people are drawn to him/her and convince themselves of it's value. They are so caught up in the fantasy of the skill of the work that they will support the artist no matter what they produce.

It's like when you see some award winning writers - it's not the merit of their writing that makes them so famous but the efforts of promotion - same goes for your favorite washing powder - there's no difference between Daz and Aldi made powder but through advertising and promotion most will skip over the cheaper brand and go straight for the Daz. You wouldn't know the difference if you used the cheaper one without your knowledge.

There was a story in the paper recently about a lady who only bought generic brand food to help save money in the recession but her family wouldn't eat it - so she put the same food into the brand name packets and of course they ate it and loved it! How did the packaging make the food better? It didn't!

The power of sales and advertising is powerful - it's convinced people an unmade bed, a square or a sheep in a box are deeply thought out, skillfully created pieces of art and if you question it - then you don't "get it". You're out of the loop! It's the emperors new clothes again and again!

I'm sorry if you feel I am antagonising you - I'm not trying to, merely I'm trying to get you to use your eyes not your head when looking at art. See it for what it is. It's a black square - not someone holding back on their skill or making you think outside the box or using years of knowledge to amaze you - it's a black square. He got a square and he painted it black and then he had the nerve to present it as "Art".

Sir Gallagher

Yous will love this. Most expensive photograph of all time. Went for 4.3 million Dollars.

Andreas Gursky-Rhein ll

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

The point about DAZ reminded me of an interesting thought experiment - similar thing to what you say about DAZ applies to most other things - If you market something as more expensive then people think it is better - eg a €100 steak is better than a €20 one even if (excluding price) they are the exact same. However the brain does actually believe the €100 steak is better and to the person eating the expensive steak, it will taste better than the €20 one (our brains are messed up like that). Excluding price are both steaks truly equal if one can produce more pleasure?

No, you got conned - paying 100 dollars for a 20 dollar steak - duh.:pac: then you're trying to tell yourself it's okay, you enjoyed it more because you threw money at it.
That is the definition of gullible.

whatdoicare

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Yous will love this. Most expensive photograph of all time. Went for 4.3 million Dollars.

Andreas Gursky-Rhein ll

Whatever genius sold this should get a medal and a key to the city - he is truly a con artist master!

Logical Fallacy

Domo230 wrote: »

This is where I disagree. I am a strong believer of the 10,000 hour rule (that becoming a master at something comes almost entirely from hard work)

You certainly will become more technically proficient from practice but I also believe you improve in other ways too.

For example I don't think Mozart produced great pieces of work because of his talent. I think he just worked his ass off and not only did his technical skills increase but his other skills (creativity,passion etc...) did too.

But there were many composers like Mozart who dedicated time and resources to improving themselves, but their names are forgotten.

Art is an individual thing, there is no strict method success. Of course practice is important, but those 10,000 hours will not always produce an artist of merit.

I think you overstate the impact of practice, it can be as limiting as it is freeing in my experience. 2 years ago i probably spent 3000+ hours working on music in a 365 day span. Composing, producing, creating. I can honestly say at the end of that year i was a more technically proficient musician but I was a worse artist. I had allowed myself to become obsessed by the technical merits of sound, the clarity of the mixdown, the perfection of pitch. My music had lost a degree of it's experimentalism and emotional honesty though...upon listening back and comparing the songs written that year to the previous year I preferred those from the previous year.

I've spent the last year finding a good blend between the side of me that wants to master technique and the side of me that demands free expression.

Like I said, practice can be a shackle sometimes.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

But the steak was more pleasurable - it was juicier, more tender, all round better cooked (at least as far as my senses could ascertain). I am getting all the experience one would get eating a €100 steak. I eat steak for the pleasure it brings and I got far more pleasure eating the €100 one than the €20 would bring. Clearly they are not the same steak.

Well, in that case I have this piece of quality carpet here- it's worth, um, 500 euros! I didn't find it at the side of the road at all! Would you like to buy it?


Seriously, please say you haven't given money to that Nigerian prince who's been sending emails?!

Sir Gallagher

whatdoicare wrote: »

Whatever genius sold this should get a medal and a key to the city - he is truly a con artist master!

But does the price take away from it as a piece of art?

whatdoicare

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

But does the price take away from it as a piece of art?

Does the price add to it?

LH Pathe

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Yous will love this. Most expensive photograph of all time. Went for 4.3 million Dollars.

Andreas Gursky-Rhein ll

I hate pisstakes like that. just cünts ludicrously flaunting wealth

Sir Gallagher

whatdoicare wrote: »

Does the price add to it?

For some people it does add to it and for some people it takes away from it, it's interesting and says more about society really.

LH Pathe wrote: »

I hate pisstakes like that. just cünts ludicrously flaunting wealth

Obviously no piece of art on this Earth is worth that type of money so i'd agree with you.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

It doesn't work because you don't have mastery in that field. If you had spent thousands of hours working on creating carpets and were capable of producing master quality carpets then I would believe what you are selling to be of worthwhile value.

Since I don't believe you have such mastery then I have no interest in it and would not get any additional pleasure from it. - similar to if I was to try sell my black square painting, I am not a master so it offers no additional meaning or pleasure to the viewer.

You really are gullible - if I met you in the street and wanted to sell you that carpet all I would have to do is make sure that I sold my story with conviction.
I would tell you how this carpet is made from the finest materials from hand bred llamas in Tibet and woven by Indian craftsmen and it's a one of a kind piece. I'm proving it's quality by the insane price tag on it!

The carpet is still a piece of rubbish but you now think it's a work of art. The price tag and story has made you believe.

Whereas I would look at the carpet and go - pfffft that carpet is from Ikea and it's filthy - take a running jump! Because I understand the value of money and what true quality looks like and I have eyes and a brain.

LH Pathe

Illuminati conspiracy to delegitimize true art / mock us

whatdoicare

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

For some people it does add to it and for some people it takes away from it, it's interesting and says more about society really.

The price tag didn't take away from it - the fact it's a photo of a road took away from it. If I didn't know the price of it I'd still think it was a load of crapola.

LH Pathe

whatdoicare wrote: »

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

For some people it does add to it and for some people it takes away from it, it's interesting and says more about society really.

The price tag didn't take away from it - the fact it's a photo of a road took away from it. If I didn't know the price of it I'd still think it was a load of crapola.

If I smeared shìt over the faces of all who bid over $10 people could come closer and appreciate attention to detail of my not so delicate strokes

Sir Gallagher

whatdoicare wrote: »

The price tag didn't take away from it - the fact it's a photo of a road took away from it. If I didn't know the price of it I'd still think it was a load of crapola.

The price tag can take away from it because people can be completely revulsed at someone spending that type of money on it and just hate it instantly.

I like it for what it's worth(not crazy about it mind you) i also like the artists other stuff. The price tag is irrellavent to me.

whatdoicare

Domo230 wrote: »

I would never believe such a silly story.

It takes a lot more than that to convince people someone is a master of their craft. If you had won several awards, were internationally regarded for your master quality rugs then yes I would find more value in your rug, would consider it more valuable and would believe you if you said you were making an artistic statement about rugmaking by creating such a piece of work. I would also get more pleasure from the rug than I would if someone else had created it.

Haha that you believe that is amazing. I've worked in sales in my youth and people do believe that. All the time.
So long as I can spin the story and say it like I mean it, people will believe it - it's basic sales 101.
You think someone is an artist because money is thrown at them and they are celebrated - it's all spin.

To me you might as well be telling me Justin Bieber is an amazing artist - he's won awards and is famous! The whole music community is laughing at him but he's raking it in! He has zero talent, zero knowledge and zero experience but there he is - rich as can be with screaming fans! Why is he famous? Promotion, spin, name dropping, more promotion - spin spin spin. He spends all his time promoting himself - he's already done a loop of the world doing this. He's everywhere! You can't get away from him.

If you still don't get it - there's no more I can say to convince you. You don't understand sales and you don't understand why eating a 20 dollar steak and paying a hundred for it is pure stupidity. A fool and their money are soon parted - as the saying goes.

Sir Gallagher

whatdoicare wrote: »

Haha that you believe that is amazing. I've worked in sales in my youth and people do believe that. All the time.
So long as I can spin the story and say it like I mean it, people will believe it - it's basic sales 101.
You think someone is an artist because money is thrown at them and they are celebrated - it's all spin.

To me you might as well be telling me Justin Bieber is an amazing artist - he's won awards and is famous! The whole music community is laughing at him but he's raking it in! He has zero talent, zero knowledge and zero experience but there he is - rich as can be with screaming fans! Why is he famous? Promotion, spin, name dropping, more promotion - spin spin spin. He spends all his time promoting himself - he's already done a loop of the world doing this. He's everywhere! You can't get away from him.

If you still don't get it - there's no more I can say to convince you. You don't understand sales and you don't understand why eating a 20 dollar steak and paying a hundred for it is pure stupidity. A fool and their money are soon parted - as the saying goes.

But Justin Beiber isn't regarded internationally as a master musician.

whatdoicare

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

But Justin Beiber isn't regarded internationally as a master musician.

Oh? Try telling that to his fans - also I said nowhere that he was a master or a musician.

LH Pathe

it's some sort of top-down mockery of the photography aspect of the art world, money tends to deligitimize all artforms in various ways and the only art in that picture is of art if you will, call a couple of textiles laid out parallel to each other that

bothered looking at it proper it's river / path / sky. But how neatly laid out fùckin nonsense droppin a few mil on that, peacocks. The more ludicrous the object n it's worthlessness the more they'll outbid each other must have been a right roomful of wànkers

Thefirestarter

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Yous will love this. Most expensive photograph of all time. Went for 4.3 million Dollars.

Andreas Gursky-Rhein ll

whatdoicare wrote: »

Whatever genius sold this should get a medal and a key to the city - he is truly a con artist master!

LH Pathe wrote: »

I hate pisstakes like that. just cünts ludicrously flaunting wealth

I'm studying Photography myself at the moment and I came across this a good few months ago.

Gursky is one the most respected photographers in contemporary and fine art photography. His stuff sells for crazy prices.

But, hence why it went for that much. His work is very valuable, so it will become worth even more in the future. It's all about making good investments for serious art collectors. This is where alot of fine art photographers get a break, a seriously wealthy art collector with a big reputation will buy into one of the photographers collections/work/project, raising the photographers profile tenfold.

Therefore, everything they produce after that will get significant attention and publicity. Gursky initially sold this piece, so he never got any of the profits.

Also, images are empty and meaningless. The viewer gives it the context.

Hope that clears up the photography bashing