I have no idea about these bricks, but then I have not taken any time to consider it… and I wont as its not something that appeals to me. But I cant dismiss it out of hand as I have no idea what it represents or otherwise.If it were by some chance a con by a bloke from wickes, that in itself would create and emotional repsonse… so on that criteria…
We are naturally dismissive of what we think is simple (the establishment of the day considers Van Gogh to 'paint like a child… ‘‘worthless and infantile without skill’’ - but its often not even about the skill it takes, but about the idea. Van Gogh could paint and draw to high ‘established’ levels especially the human body… but he CHOSE to represent colour and form emotionally and give an ‘impression’ (although he is considered a post impressionist) of what he saw, rather than a ‘photographic’ like realism… art is about ideas, some stupid, some ridiculous, some simplistic, some complex… sometimes there are no ‘meanings’ or even anything to ‘get’, its simply about getting you to ask questions about what you see and feel
1 Like
Surely if art has to be explained to you it’s missed its point. Most people have an emotional response to art…not a reasoned one.
3 Likes
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Art should create an emotional repsonse - sometimes it will be beautiful, sometimes very moving, others shocking or confusing - but never indifference.
For me, it was usually confusion - does Art still post on SWF?
6 Likes
Too some extent I agree. But I would suggest there are multiple aspects to it - the emotional repsonse, the rational one (which requires an understanding of context and maybe the approach/style/movemnet etc) eg. you can dislike something yet appreciate it if that makes sense?
For me this is summed up in something like Wyndam Lewis’ A Battery Shelled (hung in The Imperial War Museum) or the war paintings of Paul Nash - they are not the sort of thing to hang in your living room - dull colours and ‘difficult’ paintings to ‘like’, but fascinating in what they convey - the stark, brutal landscapes of war… Why should it be any different with various ‘odd’ installations or sculpture?
Indeed but Paul Nash’s paintings don’t have to be explained…they carry their message visually. They do require a certain amount of prior knowledge but nothing about art.
1 Like
Very true, because we are all familiar with the subject matter - the trouble is that when we are not familiar with the subject matter or cant see it because it may be ‘abstract’ thought or ‘distorted’, we often struggle to make sense of it… and when we cant make sense of something, especially if it’s not beautiful, our default is to say it’s shit, because we dont like that situation.
All it needs is a little time to get the information. Art is actually very simple. If you listen to most art experts descriptions of it, its mostly about life, its history, good, bad, evil, crap, love, hate, etc…sure they might use a few poncy figurative words in their descriptions, (like poncy business speak to sound clever) but what they are describing will be understandable by all.
For example… and this is purely speculation… lets take the shape in which those bricks have been arranged. It could represent the shape of a bed. The fact its hard, cold, could be a reflection of poverty, a hard life, lived etc… still spounds like BS?.. so now imgaine it in a shanty town in Brazil, the bricks just there to elevate your bed off the ground to avoid the damp on which to place a threadbare matress…, OK so this is just speculation without knowing anything about the piece, but it shows how suddenly a pile of bricks can represent something else and convey a message beyond a piss take from a wickes employee… of course it could just be a piss take from a wickes employee…in which case my speculation is arty fary bollox, but then the art is in the con 
Surely if you feel the need to have art explained to you, you’ve missed the point. Allow yourself to have an emotional response, not a reasoned one.
(that said, I thought it was a bit done before.)
Point is you can have both - eg to complicate this all a bit further…it perfectly reasonable for art to leave you cold, not effect you at all, despite being able to appreciate or understand the skill involved…
When I say beauty though it is really appreciation isnt it. I agree that art doesnt have to be beautiful and some great art is anything but. What I want to see on a wall or in a gallery is not only something which strikes a cord for me, but also something that I could never do myself. I produce an umade bed every day. I could line up a row of bricks in minutes. I could flick paint on a canvas and produce something like a Pollock with no trouble. I couldnt dream of painting like Van Gogh or producing the amazing images that flow from Picassos imagination. Some people on a higher plane that me will tell me that I am missing the point and explain why Ermin, Pollock and the Wickes man are all geniuses, but I will never get it. I want to stand in front of something and be moved by something that is outside of my own experience to create. This year I have spent hours standing in front of works by da Vinci, Breugel, Picasso, Van Gogh and the like and been blown away by the power of their work. I have also stood in front of things that People Who Know Abourt Art tell me are proper works of art and they really are just piss takes. The row of bricks is a prime example. A smudge of paint another. An umade bed another. I am still struggling with Warhol. The bloke was either a complete genius or a consumate con man but I do think that Pollock is a piss take. I agree that money shouldnt be an issue and that the price of a work only refelcts what someone is prepared to pay for it. What does irritate me though are Those Who Get Art telling me that the Wickes man or an unmade bed are doing things on a higher plane. No they are not. It is lazy, pretentious bollocks. Now I am off to create another masterpiece with poo and seaweed! 
1 Like
See my point above re the bricks SOG… its EASY to get if you take the time with context. Also we need to recognise that technique is not the be all and everything when it comes to art… What you have to bear in mind is that those great masters you mention were not creating works just to move or create beauty… but their subjects and poses were steeped in politics and innuendo and social commentary. Many seem comfortable with the ‘people who know about art’ telling them a Titian is a masterpiece, yet can’t accept the same folk offering help in understanding an installation?. Again (beds/bricks or Pollocks splatters), don’t confuse the level of technique needed to create art. The idea and the context is equally important - maybe more so in modernist or abstract styles.
You also talk about a ‘higher plane’ - there seems to be an element of reverse snobbery creeping in here. There is no ‘higher’ plane in art. It is what it is and there is no need for some pretend elevated intellectualism in order to’understand’ it. Its simple - just need to take time to listen, observe and not take everyting at face value… if you want to that is. It wont make you like it, yu may not even agree or appreciate it, but it might help with not dismissing it all out of hand.
1 Like
I don’t think there is a reverse snobbery in interpreting a visual stimulus emotionally…that’s how the vast majority of people interpret art. If you react in a positive way you “get it” if it leaves you cold and uncomprehending, “you don’t get it” and no amount of resoning will change that…at least it won’t change my view of it.
I can view “installation art” and “get it” It might not be what the artist was trying to say to the viewer but just as long as it gives pleasure in some way to the viewer, why should the artist’s justification be more valid than the viewer who “got it wrong”
The reverse snobbery though was with respect to the ‘higher plane’ and ‘the people wjho know about art’ - there seems to be a feeling that when ‘people who know about art’ tell you someting about a piece to help us undrstand it, if we still dont get it, it makes their opinion somehow less credible.
We listen to lawyers for advice on the law becaue they have studied it
We listen to doctors for medical advice because they have studied it
Yet there seems to be less credibilty applied to the comments and insight that can be provided by those who have studied art…
Whilst our opinion on a piece will always be subjective, our emotive response unique to each of us, there is a great deal that can be had from having insights from experts who know the artist in broadening our view or what can be attributed to it.
Surely, to dismiss something as shit because we dont get it suggests we are not ‘Willing’ to explore anything beyond our current POV. that we are not willing or accepting that we ‘could’ learn more about a piece, if only we chose to do so.
IMHO, closing our minds to learning new things from folks who have more knowledge on a subject that we do, is a rather limiting. I just dont get why when it comes to art, so many seem more comfortable going by their own first impressions rather than inquire with an open mind and listen to experts who know the subject matter. All it does is help us form more reasoned and intelligent opinion.
I get your point about reverse snobbery CR but we go to solicitors because they know about the law and the law is objective not subjective. Art is nothing but subjective. You could argue that everything everyone does every day is a perfect example of performance art. Every unmade bed is a piece of art. Every pile of bricks. To me the work of Van Gogh,although simplistic, is not childlike because I dont believe a child could produce something like that. It has a lot more going on. I am no art historian but I can see that. I have listened to those who think that Ermin’s unmade bed is genius and their reasons why but, for me, it is one of the best examples of the Kings New Clothes going. What makes Ermin’s bed artistically worthwhile and worthy of exhibiting and mine not? Because she is an artist and I am not? Because someone who “knows about art” decides it is worthy? I still maintain that some things are deemed to be artistic just because the art world has deemed them so when in fact they have no artistic merit whatsoever. Just because someone has studied art and is paid as a professional critic doesnt mean that their subjective opinion is worth more then my subjective opinion. A solicitors opinion is worth more because they deal in obsolutes. These can be put before a judge and their worthiness assessed based upon some fixed values. Put an unmade bed before a judge and he will tell you it is an unmade bed for that is what it is. Ask him if it is artistic or has any artistic merit and he can only give you a subjective viewpoint. He might call in an art critic for their opinion and they might make a case for it being a work of art, but it would only be an opinion. I dont think it would be so hard to make a case for a Titian or a Van Gogh or Monet.
1 Like
I think the reason we are still debating this is that you believe that ‘Art is nothing but subjective’. That is ismply not the case. how you chose to interpret it is, but how you chose to interpret it depends on your current knowledge and how open you are to new insights rather than just relying on your own…and you must differentiate between ‘critics’ and 'experts who have studied…
You talk of ‘someone deciding its worthy’… no one says it is worthy or not, they may provide further insght based on additional knowledge they have… why be so closed to this?
Let’s take Emin’s Bed. Have you actually seen it, not just pictures? Have you seen all the junk litered around it? Yes you have an unmade bed in you bedroom every morning, but you dont leave it unmade for any reason.
Emin’s Bed was about (to me) illustrating what her life was about at a particular point in time… the junk illustrating what she did, liked, loved, hated, struggled with. I dont like it, I think its simplistic, but to dismiss it as without merit is …sorry, but dont you think its being prejudicial or even a bit stubborn to refuse to go beyond the simple visual represenation?
You also seem to keep forgetting that how ‘great masters’ are now considered is completely differently from how they were perceived at their contemporary time…
Finally to use your courtroom analogy, there is a reason why Judges will call upon ‘expert witnesses’ - notice the word ‘expert’ not ‘critic’ - it IS to provide an OPINION, which is why both defense and prosecution will try and use different experts… with opinions to support their own. It is because Judges have to have an open mind to listen to all the evidence from all parties before coming to a conclusion.
All I am suggesting is that if we are the judge when it comes to our view on art, should we not do the same and listen to ALL those who may have an insight that helps inform our opinion?
1 Like
I agree that many great masters were not seen as great at the time and that many only found fame after they passed away. But they produced works that clearly had merit or something about them which meant that they were eventually recognised for what they are. I am afraid that our Tracey saying that he unmade bed says something about her life at that time…argh! It is a bed. It isnt made. Perhaps her life was a mess. Paint a fucking picture then! Dont just drag your furniture in and say hey, this crumpled bed represents how crumpled my life is guys, how cool is that? By dismissing it I think we would be doing the artworld a favour. I am happy to discuss the likes and merits of Pollock and Warhol because at least they have produced something that has emerged from a creative process other than having a kip. I am sorry but I really wish more people in the art world would stop pandering to people who really should be told that they are talking the piss. Yes. it is my opinion, but I have lost count of the number of people who have said that is not art and am sure I am not alone. I am happy to listen to insight all day long about painting styles, sculptures, songs. But when it cames to someone saying look at the masterful way that she has left that skidmark on the sheet and the wonderful use of the used tampon under the duvet that is where I draw the line. How can you truly stand up and provide insight into an unmade bed and expect to be talking seriously?
1 Like
If I watch sport, listen to music, read, or look at art, I want these people to do things that amaze.
I want them to show me things that are beyond me and your average geezer.
Aguero does things with a football that I can only dream of.
Hendrix did things wtih a guitar that are beyond imagination.
That was a canvas with brown paint smeared on it - badly.
I could have done that in ten minutes - but I wouldn’t have done, as it insults educated people.
Defend art that is worthy, don’t try and defend everything.
I am begining to think you are playing devils advocate now SOG. Are you seriously suggesting that it would more like art if she painted it rather than created an installation? Should Michelangelo have painted David instead? Principle is the same as you are suggesting one medium is more ‘art like’ than another. To ASSUME that an artist does not use the creative process on a piece is being rather disengenuous dont you think? Yet you are ‘happy’ to discuss the merits of Pollock or Warhol… Come on SOG…
I can’t say I think Emin’s bed is good, bad or whatever. I dont like it, but i wont dismiss it just because I dont have enough information on it. No experts would ever say ‘look at the materful way she has left a skidmark’ FFS SOG… not sure who you have heard talking about art, but its certainly no experts… getting close to WUM territory there SOG.
‘worthy’ you see that is what i have a problem with - because how can you determine what is and what is not worthy? Especially if you have no idea what was intended or what someone was thinking about when they thought of or worked on a piece? Is that not rather arrogant?
As mentioned before, art is not just about technique.The fact that you can easily replicate someone elses work is not any sort of indicator of the merit of a pice of work - there are plenty of technically gifted paiters that could forge or fake someones work… yet lack any originality in what they do.
At the end of the day, we are all free to chose what we want to invest time in. I just think its a shame that with art, there seems to be a lack of will to invest time into it, if its not immediately exciting or interesting us. You may never get beyond thinking something is crap and a waste of time and you are entitled to that view, but at least give yourselves a chance by exploring things in greater detail before making up your mind. 
This in no longer simply a thread, it’s now an exciting raw conflict-themed digital installation that challenges perceptions and pushes the creative envelope, abducting the genre from the street and dragging it screaming into cyber space.
All posters are in reality cutting-edge creators with no grasp of how their contribution will eventually influence the pattern of the piece.
Their petty disagreements represent a futuristic world at war using words as weapons and brushes in equal measure, and the brutal yet randomly chosen use of language shows how the simple act of communication itself can lead to conflict.
The refreshing laissez-faire attitude to posting mirrors the lack of time spent on some works of art and challenges our perception of creativity, this naivety of structure gives it strength.
But while some of our posts may be meaningless and trivial, when linked with valid points they are the bricks that build the installation - the worthy blocks lined with the unworthy, cemented by a common goal, so all posts take up the same virtual gallery space and are thus given equal credibility in the blindly democratic theatre stalls of our minds.
It is very exciting to be part of something so pioneering.
3 Likes
