Is there an art thread here that I've missed?

I wanted to ask what people think of art which "makes it big" but doesn't look difficult, ie; makes my husband say "I could do that"

This has been brought on my visiting the RA Hockney exhibition in Laandan.

And is it ok to wander around saying "I could do that" in a loud voice in the RA?

So long as you don't mind someone responding, "Then do it," I imagine it's fine.

That's the thing. I went to an art museum that had an original Jackson Pollack. Great huge thing, with splotches of paint all over it. The guy next to me said, "I could do that," and I told him that he should, then.

He came to me about a month later and averred that he couldn't. He didn't go into much detail, but he showed me the results and, well, it wasn't Jackson Pollack.

I prefer representational art over anything else, but the more abstract stuff seems to require more skill than it's usually given credit for.

I still get the feeling that in a lot of cases involving conceptual, minimal, and modern "artforms" that it is WHO you know more than WHAT you know that is important.

It s true that SOME abstract stuff requires more skill than it may be given credit for, but some of it ABSOLUTELY does not, and it makes me wonder how they ever made it into a place that claims to display important pieces of art. It seems a mockery sometimes.

My biggest pet peeve is this:
I don't believe that 'untrained artists' deserve any additional attention that those that HAVE been trained. WHO CARES if that person hasn't had a single day of training in their life, when the case is plainly evident? (If they do great work, then FINE, I concede the point without hesitation.)

Otherwise, FOLK ART should stay at home on the fridge.

Being a dick art critic, I can tell when something is worthy of artishness. Everyone else is WRONG.

Video game Portal? Art.

iPhone? Art.

Gerber Multi-tool? Art.

This even though it's NSFW and stupid as hell? Art.

Anything within 500 meters of Michael Bay? Unfortunately, that's art too.

So basically, everything I can and can't do can be considered art. Doesn't mean I necessarily like it, but it's art.

I don't find "I could do that" all that helpful a comment, mainly for the reason Dweller mentioned. There's more craft in abstract painting than people usually acknowledge, usually there's much more going on in terms of composition etc. than may be readily apparent.

Even though I've been known to take part in too many discussions on what is art and what isn't, I find these discussions futile - as soon as people think the question of *quality* comes into it, you're never going to agree on a definition. I prefer to have a very open definition of art and then move on to questions like these:

- Does the work touch me, move me, make me think?
- Is it aesthetically interesting?
- Does it work on more than one level?

It's absolutely fair to answer "no" to the first of these and move on to another work of art, but that doesn't mean the answer will necessarily be the same for others. I find a lot of conceptual art quite boring, myself, but I'm much happier to dismiss art *critics* than works of art that don't do anything for me. If they need tons of jargon and verbiage to talk about a work, I suspect they're using that to hide that they don't have all that much to say.

I think those are very useful questions to ask about art, Thirith. Though I'd be lying if I denied that I often also ask myself "Does the creation of this piece involve an unusual level of skill?". Example: a friend of mine told me about a painting she saw in the Louvre (though I can't remember the title or the artist) that was just a huge canvas painted in one shade of blue all over. I haven't seen it, but I highly doubt that I would answer "yes" to any of your three questions or my fourth one in this case. So, not art to me. it might be to someone else, but ultimately, art is subjective. Performance art doubly so, but let's not open that particular can of surströmming.

There was an interesting article in the Guardian recently about what the writer termed 'Con art' but I can't for the life of me find it now. It was pretty good, though.

There's a rebuttal of the view here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arta...iticism-contemporary although it doesn't reference the original article I remember reading.

(Interestingly, I think this may be the article I was thinking of - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...us-Damien-Hirst.html although I certainly don't remember it being on the Daily Mail!)

ETA: Ahah! It was this one: http://www.independent.co.uk/o...t-world-7586386.html

quote:

Originally posted by Ceridwen:
Example: a friend of mine told me about a painting she saw in the Louvre (though I can't remember the title or the artist) that was just a huge canvas painted in one shade of blue all over. I haven't seen it, but I highly doubt that I would answer "yes" to any of your three questions or my fourth one in this case. So, not art to me. it might be to someone else, but ultimately, art is subjective.

And I saw this painting on tour and loved it, thus proving your point.

(What impressed me wis that it looked as though the canvas has been made out of blue threads, the colouring was so uniform. And then you get up close, and you realize that, no, it was done with brush-strokes, rather small ones. Thousands of them, each unique in its own way, but producing an almost completely homogenous whole.)

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
(What impressed me wis that it looked as though the canvas has been made out of blue threads, the colouring was so uniform. And then you get up close, and you realize that, no, it was done with brush-strokes, rather small ones. Thousands of them, each unique in its own way, but producing an almost completely homogenous whole.)

Ah, see, that would turn me around, because it answers question 4 with a resounding "yes"!

There is a phrase, or rather two, in German about this: "'Kunst' kommt von 'Können'" and "'Kunst' kommt von 'Künden', nicht von 'Können'". They roughly translate to: "'Art' comes from 'skill'", and "'Art' comes from 'to announce', not from 'skill'" (works better in German because of the alliteration). The latter is most often used by artists themselves as a rebuttal to the former.

Can't retouch it or anything so this is the raw photo. I think Twister lady is an art installation.

I prefer my women wearing Battleship grid patterns.

G5 and G6 my friend. G5 and G6.

If you want to learn talk like a *real* art critic, this post is a public service: behold the Brian Sewell Voice Sampler.

(I think he's wrong about Rothko, btw. I adore Rothko.)

this is my best friend's website for his work, it can get a little non safe for work

Sewing is an art, so is knitting.

I think the problem with "I can do that" statements is that Jackson Pollock wasn't looking at splatter art in a museum. He did it at a time when everybody else was doing something very different.

I might be able to do what Jackson Pollock does but only if I'm copying him.

Dweller – I didn’t say to my husband “Then do it”, I said “but you didn’t do it, did you” (and I sighed because although it would be nice to have a rich husband, I’m not sure I could cope with his ego if he had!)

”I prefer representational art over anything else, but the more abstract stuff seems to require more skill than it's usually given credit for.” - I think so too J

Artguy – I know what you mean. But how do you get to know people in the know? And is it really that – or is it being in the right place at the right time, with a new idea, that inspires someone with the money to pay for it.

Furious - This even though it's NSFW and stupid as hell? Art. - Seriously?! (I did this in my heavy drinking weekend youth, but art?)

- “Does the work touch me, move me, make me think?
- Is it aesthetically interesting?
- Does it work on more than one level?”

I never thought about questioning art like this Thirith, but it’s a really good idea. I may keep these on a little bit of paper for future trips to the Tate Modern (if I ever have to go again)

Ceridwen - It makes me a little cross to see how much money is paid for some of these enormous bland pieces and then how so many skilled artists are looked over because what they do isn’t new or doesn’t get seen by the “right” people. (the ones with financial backing).

Fion – thanks for the links to those articles. Very different views. I know a lot of art students really love Hirst. I can’t bear the money side of things. But it’s always good to see new things.

I just wish those links to all the beautiful stuff on this board could get out there and get the artists recognition of the time spent on this stuff; ie the - to be continued.

It's past my bed time. Sorry. Thanks for all thinks!

quote:

Originally posted by Motley:
Furious - This even though it's NSFW and stupid as hell? Art. - Seriously?! (I did this in my heavy drinking weekend youth, but art?)

Yup. Eliminating money (and scammy bullsh*t) from the equation, art is a Rorschach test, whether that item has a practical use or not, or whether it was made with skill or half-assery or has a natural form presented. Whether I take the time to find some personal meaning in the piece or not or even if I disregard or dislike it outright, it's still art.

It's like certain critics grumping about video games not being art. *snorts snortily* It's like me holding my Casio wristwatch in my hand and saying that its not a wristwatch. Because some doofus says something (not me, the critics. THE OTHER CRITICS. ) doesn't make it necessarily so.

quote:

Originally posted by ladykatza:
Sewing is an art, so is knitting.

For the most part I totally agree. However, I consider myself a craftsman not an artist. I am a pattern follower. I modify the patterns. But if I display my work in a show, I still need to credit the person that made the pattern. In quilting there is a category called "art quilts" (very free form,) and yet you will find "traditional" quilts in galleries and museums.

The current sad state of art says much about the death of culture in the moneyed classes.

quote:

Originally posted by Nemo888:
The current sad state of art says much about the death of culture in the moneyed classes.

It's the Dr. Seuss Sneetches thing. Although I did like the trend of vapid female celebrities having their smartphones 'hacked' and nude photos of themselves 'leaked' to the InterWebs.

What? That's art! And I appreciated it.