Modern art critics. Oh dear...

UndercoverElephant · 15th June 2006, 04:18 AM

I always suspected modern art was up it's own backside and that the critics hadn't got a clue. Now I'm sure:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/5081744.stm

Tirdun · 15th June 2006, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience [...] But it's up to the artist to use language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don't want to use a language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we 'fail' to see what they are driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of incompetence.
-Jubal Harshaw, Stranger In A Strange Land

I've kept this quote from Heinlein around forever.

Meffy · 15th June 2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

It said the head had been safely stored ready to be collected by the artist.

=>_<= Please store my head alongside it.

Zardoz -- the universe's revenge for this.

UserGoogol · 15th June 2006, 12:55 PM

To be fair, I have to agree with the judging panel. The face is kind of stupid looking, whereas the wooden support pole is rather elegant, and contrasts nicely against the metal it's resting on.

Godmode · 15th June 2006, 01:02 PM

I like the face, I'd probably like it better if I had a good view of it...they should prop that up with a stick or something.

Meffy · 16th June 2006, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Godmode

I like the face, I'd probably like it better if I had a good view of it...they should prop that up with a stick or something.

The face might sag, and there would be charges of Dali derivation.

Darat · 16th June 2006, 07:47 AM

Being discussed also in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58458

chriswl · 17th June 2006, 09:30 AM

There was a nice commentary on this in the Guardian a few days ago:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...798851,00.html

Quote:

"I wonder, though, whether the RA's embarrassment is quite the humiliation of modern art that it appears. The argument that the selection panel has been stupid - and fooled into elevating a mistake into art - rests largely on the fact that they were not seeing what the artist intended. But an artist's interpretation of his or her own work has only limited validity; it's outsiders who decide how it goes down. You can write a play and call it a comedy, but if theatregoers don't laugh there's no arguing with them.

Or imagine that the last chapter of a crime novel were accidentally omitted in a mix-up at the printers. Readers and critics who admired the ambiguity of the ending - and welcomed the author's departure from the convention that every loose end must be tied - are not wrong or stupid. They simply responded honestly to what they were shown and expressed a preference for work that was willing to ignore traditions."

I think I agree with that. There is something quite intriguing and sinister about a bone on a plinth entitled "One Day Closer To Paradise".

Renfield · 19th June 2006, 11:53 AM

Where modern art is concerned, I always suspected the real artistry was in coming up with the explanations, justifications, and interpritations of this stuff. Now that seems even more likely.

Since the work of "art" here was actually only the support and not a work in itself, does it qualify as "found" art, I wonder? Have the judges inadvertantly become the artists here, since it was they who(m?) discovered this thing and put it up there?

Rustle · 20th June 2006, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by chriswl

There was a nice commentary on this in the Guardian a few days ago:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...798851,00.html

I think I agree with that. There is something quite intriguing and sinister about a bone on a plinth entitled "One Day Closer To Paradise".

I think the commentary misses entirely in its analogies. What happened would be like this: A writer submits a short story to a publisher, who promptly publishes the front of the envelope, dismissing the manuscript inside.

I don't have a problem with displaying a wooden peg as art, but clearly the expertise and authority of these judges fell down. Don't you think?

Rustle · 20th June 2006, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Renfield

Since the work of "art" here was actually only the support and not a work in itself, does it qualify as "found" art, I wonder? Have the judges inadvertantly become the artists here, since it was they who(m?) discovered this thing and put it up there?

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

tkingdoll · 20th June 2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Rustle

I think the commentary misses entirely in its analogies. What happened would be like this: A writer submits a short story to a publisher, who promptly publishes the front of the envelope, dismissing the manuscript inside.

No, because the writer would immediately be sued for plagiarism by the Post Office.

El Greco · 20th June 2006, 09:57 AM

My criterion for deciding whether something is art I don't understand or junk I don't understand, is whether I could make it or think it myself. If I see something that even *I* could make or think, then it most probably is junk.

UserGoogol · 20th June 2006, 05:02 PM

I don't see why the difficulty of art should have any bearing on its quality. Art is good if it looks good. A plinth on a stone tablet looks good. Therefore, this is good art. That the artist just grabbed it so that he would have something to support his statue seems irrelevant as to the quality of the plinth as art.

geni · 20th June 2006, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

No, because the writer would immediately be sued for plagiarism by the Post Office.

Not legaly posible. They could sue for a copyright violation on the stamp and the postmark.

kittynh · 20th June 2006, 07:06 PM

I"m too exhausted posting in the other thread about modern art. Get some Thomas Hoving books, read up.

Remember, Van Gogh was known as the crazy guy that painting UGLY cheap sunflowers and his own UGLY poor bedroom. And what was up with the colors? Garish and bright. And none of it looks REAL.

geni · 20th June 2006, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by kittynh

Remember, Van Gogh was known as the crazy guy that painting UGLY cheap sunflowers and his own UGLY poor bedroom. And what was up with the colors? Garish and bright. And none of it looks REAL.

Yes and?

Renfield · 26th June 2006, 12:26 PM

I don't think anyone, even Van Gogh's biggest haters, ever confused his work with coat pegs, or vice versa.

15th June 2006, 04:18 AM	#1
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Modern art critics. Oh dear... I always suspected modern art was up it's own backside and that the critics hadn't got a clue. Now I'm sure: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/5081744.stm
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th June 2006, 04:21 AM	#2
Tirdun Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Near DC, in an underground NWO bunker Posts: 637	Quote: Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience [...] But it's up to the artist to use language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don't want to use a language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we 'fail' to see what they are driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of incompetence. -Jubal Harshaw, Stranger In A Strange Land I've kept this quote from Heinlein around forever.
	__________________ The rain has a such a lovely sound to those who're six feet underground The leaves will bury every year and no one knows I'm gone -Tom Waits May You Never Thirst, Slàinte!

15th June 2006, 12:55 PM	#4
UserGoogol Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,074	To be fair, I have to agree with the judging panel. The face is kind of stupid looking, whereas the wooden support pole is rather elegant, and contrasts nicely against the metal it's resting on.
	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's Razor

16th June 2006, 07:47 AM	#7
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Being discussed also in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58458
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

19th June 2006, 11:53 AM	#9
Renfield Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,055	Where modern art is concerned, I always suspected the real artistry was in coming up with the explanations, justifications, and interpritations of this stuff. Now that seems even more likely. Since the work of "art" here was actually only the support and not a work in itself, does it qualify as "found" art, I wonder? Have the judges inadvertantly become the artists here, since it was they who(m?) discovered this thing and put it up there?
	__________________ If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank. -Woody Allen (1935 - http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/

15th June 2006, 12:22 PM	#3
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Quote: It said the head had been safely stored ready to be collected by the artist. =>_<= Please store my head alongside it. Zardoz -- the universe's revenge for this.

15th June 2006, 01:02 PM	#5
Godmode Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: UK Posts: 495	I like the face, I'd probably like it better if I had a good view of it...they should prop that up with a stick or something.

16th June 2006, 06:04 AM	#6
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Originally Posted by Godmode I like the face, I'd probably like it better if I had a good view of it...they should prop that up with a stick or something. The face might sag, and there would be charges of Dali derivation.

17th June 2006, 09:30 AM	#8
chriswl Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: S.E. England Posts: 944	There was a nice commentary on this in the Guardian a few days ago: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...798851,00.html Quote: "I wonder, though, whether the RA's embarrassment is quite the humiliation of modern art that it appears. The argument that the selection panel has been stupid - and fooled into elevating a mistake into art - rests largely on the fact that they were not seeing what the artist intended. But an artist's interpretation of his or her own work has only limited validity; it's outsiders who decide how it goes down. You can write a play and call it a comedy, but if theatregoers don't laugh there's no arguing with them. Or imagine that the last chapter of a crime novel were accidentally omitted in a mix-up at the printers. Readers and critics who admired the ambiguity of the ending - and welcomed the author's departure from the convention that every loose end must be tied - are not wrong or stupid. They simply responded honestly to what they were shown and expressed a preference for work that was willing to ignore traditions." I think I agree with that. There is something quite intriguing and sinister about a bone on a plinth entitled "One Day Closer To Paradise".

20th June 2006, 09:17 AM	#10
Rustle Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 126	Originally Posted by chriswl There was a nice commentary on this in the Guardian a few days ago: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...798851,00.html I think I agree with that. There is something quite intriguing and sinister about a bone on a plinth entitled "One Day Closer To Paradise". I think the commentary misses entirely in its analogies. What happened would be like this: A writer submits a short story to a publisher, who promptly publishes the front of the envelope, dismissing the manuscript inside. I don't have a problem with displaying a wooden peg as art, but clearly the expertise and authority of these judges fell down. Don't you think?
Rustle Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 126

20th June 2006, 09:18 AM	#11
Rustle Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 126	Originally Posted by Renfield Since the work of "art" here was actually only the support and not a work in itself, does it qualify as "found" art, I wonder? Have the judges inadvertantly become the artists here, since it was they who(m?) discovered this thing and put it up there? I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!
Rustle Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 126

20th June 2006, 09:51 AM	#12
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Rustle I think the commentary misses entirely in its analogies. What happened would be like this: A writer submits a short story to a publisher, who promptly publishes the front of the envelope, dismissing the manuscript inside. No, because the writer would immediately be sued for plagiarism by the Post Office.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

20th June 2006, 09:57 AM	#13
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,307	My criterion for deciding whether something is art I don't understand or junk I don't understand, is whether I could make it or think it myself. If I see something that even I could make or think, then it most probably is junk.
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

20th June 2006, 05:02 PM	#14
UserGoogol Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,074	I don't see why the difficulty of art should have any bearing on its quality. Art is good if it looks good. A plinth on a stone tablet looks good. Therefore, this is good art. That the artist just grabbed it so that he would have something to support his statue seems irrelevant as to the quality of the plinth as art.
	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's Razor

20th June 2006, 05:17 PM	#15
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by tkingdoll No, because the writer would immediately be sued for plagiarism by the Post Office. Not legaly posible. They could sue for a copyright violation on the stamp and the postmark.

20th June 2006, 07:06 PM	#16
kittynh The Hupsu Detective auctioneer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: If I told the aliens could find me, and you know they read this forum Posts: 22,707	I"m too exhausted posting in the other thread about modern art. Get some Thomas Hoving books, read up. Remember, Van Gogh was known as the crazy guy that painting UGLY cheap sunflowers and his own UGLY poor bedroom. And what was up with the colors? Garish and bright. And none of it looks REAL.
	__________________ WWW.BADALIEN.ORG - not all the buttons work yet, and the science content is coming...but it's ALIVE!

20th June 2006, 07:20 PM	#17
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by kittynh Remember, Van Gogh was known as the crazy guy that painting UGLY cheap sunflowers and his own UGLY poor bedroom. And what was up with the colors? Garish and bright. And none of it looks REAL. Yes and?

26th June 2006, 12:26 PM	#18
Renfield Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,055	I don't think anyone, even Van Gogh's biggest haters, ever confused his work with coat pegs, or vice versa.
	__________________ If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank. -Woody Allen (1935 - http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/