-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
another master-piece is ruined.... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mark richards
- Start date
Okay so this particular piece doesn't do much for me...[or others so it seems]
..but take time to have a look at some of Martin Kippenbergers other stuff...:cat:
I like a lot of it and reckon he had quite a sense of humor...[so i imagine he'll be giggling from beyond the grave]...!
http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
..but take time to have a look at some of Martin Kippenbergers other stuff...:cat:I like a lot of it and reckon he had quite a sense of humor...[so i imagine he'll be giggling from beyond the grave]...!
http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
solitaryVSong
Well-known member
Could never say it more eloquently than Hans Christian Andersen though. It was a pleasure to read the entire tale. It kept ringing so true: "I'm not a fool."
I'll take a look at his stuff user since you recommend it. I think this piece would be more palatable without mention of the price. When so many talented artists can't make a living from art it's very hard to be sympathetic to stuff that's valued in 6 digits and yet seems to be nothing more than a slightly clever idea.
I was living in California when Christo did his 'Running Fence', which I think was one of his earlier works. I rode along it with some friends of mine. They oohed and ahhed while I kept saying, 'but I like the real fences better.' And they didn't cost over a million dollars to put up, or whatever the outrageous price was. I and my friends had a lengthy argument about whether price should enter into the appreciation of art. It probably shouldn't. But when you see prices like this it's hard not to notice them and at least for me to criticize them. But I've been in the minority in the 'artsy-fartsy' world for a good 30 years or more with this type of thinking.
When I studied art history in college I read an essay from the 1700s or so about someone who valued the opinion of 'ignorarts'. I've never been able to find the essay again. But I always enjoyed it because the author said that sometimes you needed to see what people who didn't know a thing about art thought. Often they had a fresher and truer view of things, like the janitor.
timwootton
Well-known member
I think you may be missing the point. This whole thread has our infamous wicked wit stamped all over it. This may seem slightly cruel but to understand that, you’d first need to understand where we are coming from. As wildlife artists we have been ostracised and berated by the elite curators and gallery directors of the art establishment; the very people who would place such works as this in ridiculously high esteem.
I must confess your contribution of drifting in tut-tutting and disparaging the previous commentators every bit as offensive and deriding as you seem to find the rest of the thread. Scolding us like naughty school children is condescending and offensive. Is this artist a particular favourite of yours, or are you of the widely-held opinion that if it’s ‘Art’ then it must be appreciated and, heavens forefend, revered? If the former, then please why not open the discussion about the artist, describe his influence on you and why you think he is meritorious and worthy of our attention? If the latter, then I’m afraid I would have to disagree most vehemently. Art, as everything else in life, can be good, mediocre, bad and/or irrelevant (non of the aforementioned need be mutually exclusive!). Now, it just so happens that you are probably among many kindred spirits here – I for one can tilt my head and stroke my chin with the best of them. But to make brusque comment as yours and then leave, with a swishing of coat-tails does nothing for either the advancement of understanding, or your own position.
To understand why some of us who sit uncomfortably in the genre of ‘wildlife art’ or even squeezed into the pigeon-sized slot of ‘bird art’ may occasionally feel the urge to let fly at conceptional or seemingly unfathomable art, you would first need to understand the repressive attitude we, and our forebears, have had to suffer. We are abused for producing ‘popular’ images, chastised if we create commercially successful work and criticised for romantic representations. At the same time there is a whole barrage of abuse waiting if we should ever paint the incorrect number of retrices on a blue-footed booby.
No – there is a divide, no doubt. Whilst we seek our versions of the truth by communing with nature and revelling in the natural world (erstwhile virtuous artistic pursuits – at least according to Leonardo, Durer, Ruskin and the Pre-Raphaelites to name a few paint-splatterers) the hierarchy of the art establishment sit in chrome-gilded rooms, fashioning ever more bizarre robes for the next big thing to drape around their oh-so worthy shoulders. The Society of Wildlife Artists is trying to break down (or break through) these barriers, but I fear it cannot happen until art-apologists take it upon themselves to allow it. We’re not wanted and deemed unnecessary. Yet still we partake in most that the ‘other’ art world has to offer. Isn’t it about time for reciprocation?
There are artists on this forum who have done things with their body parts that would make Tracy Ermin’s eyes water – but in the name of wildlife art so therefore deemed irrelevant. But in our world of art it is never the process nor the idea which is celebrated – it is always the result.
Anyone who incorporates the idea of a forest-fire cooked tortoise being dined on al fresco by hooded spectres has all the originality of anything by Damien Hurst, but the fact that its execution is beautifully painted and well crafted contributes apparently nothing to its standing as a work of art – indeed it would appear that the ‘better’ one can paint, the less likely to be celebrated by the intelligencia. Were such works daubed on with a two-inch pastry brush, no doubt this would heighten its appeal to those unspeakably ugly folk – the critics.
We are members of a broad church down here in the bowels and welcome all points of view, but ours is generally a diocese based on irreverent humour. It may be useful to be reminded from time to time that if we don’t sound as articulate as others, it is probably because our tongues are too deeply buried in our cheeks.
In the words of Jimmy Rabbit (The Commitments) – Dubliners are the blacks of Europe, and we are the blacks of Dublin – so we’ll say it loud “We’re black and we’re proud!”
Now – time for a cuppa I think. Marcel? Marcel?!! - oh no, not again!!!
Last edited:
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
Tim - that's probably the best reasoned retort I think I've ever read on the entire forum. Well done mate, really.
:clap: B
:clap: B
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
And our noses aren't buried too deep between someone else's cheeks
Sorry, had to lower the tone again
I'd sooner dwell amongst the wildlife artists than get sucked into so called 'high art' fraternity where one needs an appreciation manual to read in order to justify why you've spent so much money on a particular piece of art...[but hey if you like it then there's no rules]...
Here's some light relief from my favorite art critics...and they prefer 'duck' painters...[chuckle]...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OCS08rabE
ps...if anyone wants to purchase my image of a 'piece of piss' then do feel free to offer me a zillion squid...
pps...hope its alright to post a youtube link here...[i will remove if it offends]..!
http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
Here's some light relief from my favorite art critics...and they prefer 'duck' painters...[chuckle]...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OCS08rabE
ps...if anyone wants to purchase my image of a 'piece of piss' then do feel free to offer me a zillion squid...
pps...hope its alright to post a youtube link here...[i will remove if it offends]..!
http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
Strandman
Well-known member
I think you may be missing the point. This whole thread has our infamous wicked wit stamped all over it. This may seem slightly cruel but to understand that, you’d first need to understand where we are coming from. As wildlife artists we have been ostracised and berated by the elite curators and gallery directors of the art establishment; the very people who would place such works as this in ridiculously high esteem.
I must confess your contribution of drifting in tut-tutting and disparaging the previous commentators every bit as offensive and deriding as you seem to find the rest of the thread. Scolding us like naughty school children is condescending and offensive. Is this artist a particular favourite of yours, or are you of the widely-held opinion that if it’s ‘Art’ then it must be appreciated and, heavens forefend, revered? If the former, then please why not open the discussion about the artist, describe his influence on you and why you think he is meritorious and worthy of our attention? If the latter, then I’m afraid I would have to disagree most vehemently. Art, as everything else in life, can be good, mediocre, bad and/or irrelevant (non of the aforementioned need be mutually exclusive!). Now, it just so happens that you are probably among many kindred spirits here – I for one can tilt my head and stroke my chin with the best of them. But to make brusque comment as yours and then leave, with a swishing of coat-tails does nothing for either the advancement of understanding, or your own position.
To understand why some of us who sit uncomfortably in the genre of ‘wildlife art’ or even squeezed into the pigeon-sized slot of ‘bird art’ may occasionally feel the urge to let fly at conceptional or seemingly unfathomable art, you would first need to understand the repressive attitude we, and our forebears, have had to suffer. We are abused for producing ‘popular’ images, chastised if we create commercially successful work and criticised for romantic representations. At the same time there is a whole barrage of abuse waiting if we should ever paint the incorrect number of retrices on a blue-footed booby.
No – there is a divide, no doubt. Whilst we seek our versions of the truth by communing with nature and revelling in the natural world (erstwhile virtuous artistic pursuits – at least according to Leonardo, Durer, Ruskin and the Pre-Raphaelites to name a few paint-splatterers) the hierarchy of the art establishment sit in chrome-gilded rooms, fashioning ever more bizarre robes for the next big thing to drape around their oh-so worthy shoulders. The Society of Wildlife Artists is trying to break down (or break through) these barriers, but I fear it cannot happen until art-apologists take it upon themselves to allow it. We’re not wanted and deemed unnecessary. Yet still we partake in most that the ‘other’ art world has to offer. Isn’t it about time for reciprocation?
There are artists on this forum who have done things with their body parts that would make Tracy Ermin’s eyes water – but in the name of wildlife art so therefore deemed irrelevant. But in our world of art it is never the process nor the idea which is celebrated – it is always the result.
Anyone who incorporates the idea of a forest-fire cooked tortoise being dined on al fresco by hooded spectres has all the originality of anything by Damien Hurst, but the fact that its execution is beautifully painted and well crafted contributes apparently nothing to its standing as a work of art – indeed it would appear that the ‘better’ one can paint, the less likely to be celebrated by the intelligencia. Were such works daubed on with a two-inch pastry brush, no doubt this would heighten its appeal to those unspeakably ugly folk – the critics.
We are members of a broad church down here in the bowels and welcome all points of view, but ours is generally a diocese based on irreverent humour. It may be useful to be reminded from time to time that if we don’t sound as articulate as others, it is probably because our tongues are too deeply buried in our cheeks.
In the words of Jimmy Rabbit (The Commitments) – Dubliners are the blacks of Europe, and we are the blacks of Dublin – so we’ll say it loud “We’re black and we’re proud!”
Now – time for a cuppa I think. Marcel? Marcel?!! - oh no, not again!!!
attaboy
I was only dropping for a relaxing browse before leaving the office..
that Times New Roman font makes my screen shimmer too
mark richards
Well-known member
I would say well-done Tim, If i could understand what you have written :-O..mark.
It always amazes me how emotive the subject of art can be...and Tim's excellent lengthy retort is an admirable demonstration of this i feel...:t:
Cheers all...B
http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
Cheers all...B
http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
solitaryVSong
Well-known member
Now that seems like the perfect answer to pomposity in the art user!!
It would probably be good to have it played in the first lecture of all art history, theory and criticism courses.And I learned something as well. Need to concentrate more on the eyes in my paintings.
Woody
Well-known member
Now that seems like the perfect answer to pomposity in the art user!!
And I learned something as well. Need to concentrate more on the eyes in my paintings.
I often prefer to convey my opinions on a topic using reference to film archive and other visual images Ken.....[the art of comedy is, to me, the best vehicle of expression]...it can cut like a knife...!
Peter Cook was every bit a master as was Leonardo....his observation and creativity was sublime...[Pete n Dud sketches never fail to amuse and impress me]...
Concentrate on the eyes...[and bottoms]..
Chuckle..!http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
solitaryVSong
Well-known member
I thought of adding that essential bit but was pretty sure at least one comment would add it for me!!
Right you are about comedy user. And a powerful response Tim.
Well back to my sandwich...................
timwootton
Well-known member
Sorry about the rant, folks - and I hope MadameSuggia comes back and offers her insight. She clearly has her own ideas about this subject and I think it would definitely be in the interest of creative discusson were she to post them here.
As I said earlier - broad church, and all that . . .
As I said earlier - broad church, and all that . . .
No need to apologize Tim...! Maybe Madams mild 'tut' was just one tut too many....and at the wrong time...!
I guess MadameSuggia was just taken aback a tad at some of the dismissiveness regarding the work...tho perhaps she shouldn't have been so surprised at comments given that artists are a passionate bunch and are divided about what constitutes 'art'...
Of course...its the 'money thing' that really winds folk up and the absolute nonsense that critics come out with that make you wanna pull your hair out...or worse...!!
ps...Lets talk Turner prizes if we really want to let loose...:eek!: [i couldn't be as restrained in my comments as you Tim]....
B http://username-beast.blogspot.com/
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
...Lets talk Turner prizes if we really want to let loose...:eek!: [i couldn't be as restrained in my comments as you Tim]....
God, NO NO NO NO!!!!!! Don't even go there man - even the mention of that disgrace to art makes my blood boil :C AAARRRGGHHHH!
