The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by artistpoet

 

Not sure how your reply relates to my post, or to anything else I've said in this thread (though you never know; I've said a lot in it).

As for Michael John Griffiths' work--are you he?--I would say it was high quality illustration rather than what I'd call art. You probably disagree; that is your right, and I would not dream of taking it away from you.

The CIA have their hands in everything, I'm sure. They even discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm not kidding--the first Westerner to see and recognize the value of a sample of the scrolls was the CIA bureau chief at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv back in 1949 or whenever it was. He had a sideline in antiques dealing and was introduced to a Bedouin who had some old scrolls for sale. The man had a sample. The CIA agent took it up to the embassy's flat roof, unrolled it and had a look. A few bits got blown away in the wind. The agent was even more blown away.

The name of the CIA man, incidentally, was Miles Copeland. One of his sons, named Stewart, later became famous for hitting Sting and other things.

Apologies Astyanax - My comments were not aimed at you - they were general comments - I must have mis clicked.
Thank you for the info re the CIA involment in Art or artifacts. However my reference to the CIA stems from the 1950s when the CIA set up world wide arts magazines promoting so called American Art.
Yes the link is my own website - Your comments are a bit of a joke to me - Ilustrator indeed - Well I have been called many things and of course you are free to make your own interpretation - BUT to say my work is not art is a very very cheap way of undermining - I am an artist - ARE YOU?
Perhaps you buy into the Damain Hirst disease - My friend went to school with him - he is more a biologist with no basic artistic credentials - Tracy Emin too - Have you seen her drawings - a 5 year old would be considered a genius besides hers - THE KING/QUEEN HAS NO CLOTHES

Originally posted by artistpoet
Yes the link is my own website - Your comments are a bit of a joke to me - Ilustrator indeed - Well I have been called many things and of course you are free to make your own interpretation - BUT to say my work is not art is a very very cheap way of undermining - I am an artist - ARE YOU?

Ah... the hoary old 'illustration isn't art' ideology.

That one goes to the heart of what this thread is all about, imo. Let's take a classic case of that:

The work of Robert Bateman

The controversy is that his work isn't seen as 'true art'.

First, the Illustrator designation:

Out of the tradition established by E.S. Thompson have emerged the school of so-called "wildlife artists" whose highly detailed work better fits the description of illustration than of fine art, and which has found itself between the covers of stacks of full-colour, folio-format books, most of them printed outside of Canada. The best-known of these pictorial naturalists are the ornithological painters J. Fenwick Lansdowne and T.M. SHORTT, followed by George McLean, Glen Loates, Robert BATEMAN and their numerous imitators.
thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

Second, the 'out-of-control' prints outcry:

Bateman's 1977 decision to enter the reproduction market became a huge controversy that has coloured his reputation as an artist. He wanted to make his work accessible to more people, so he personally signs from 950 - 12,000 copies of each of his paintings.
www.cbc.ca...

IMO... there is nothing that Bateman needs to apologise for. That he makes a good living out of providing beautiful prints to the widest population possible is a GOOD thing. Those who complain about it are just jealous. As for him not being classified as an artist is pure elitism. Of course he's an artist.

Every human being on this freaking planet is an artist in one way or another. If you crochet dainty ear muffs in a design you've invented, you're an artist. If you whittle little dogs out of a knot of wood, you're an artist. If you do anything at all creative, you're an artist and I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find just one individual in this world who, at one time or another, hasn't done something that they thought of and made all on their own.

Creativity is art. Humans are creative. Ergo... all humans are artists.

reply to post by masqua

Thank you for you post/links and observations.
It is true that all have creativity within them - It is only elitist bs mongers that attempt to place their ideas on a pedestal and try to fool others and even themselves that this or that is a work of genius.
I say go by what you feel and what appeals to you because that is your choice and your view is as valid as any bs monger so called expert that would define what ART is and impose that view on the ordinary folk - I for one have never bought it.

reply to post by Astyanax

Of course I can't. It only takes one self-abuser in an attic somewhere to prove me wrong.

Of course you can’t – and of course I can’t prove you wrong either. But proof really isn’t what I’m after – admissions are what do it for me now :-)

I think the term self-abuser is telling. Attic is another good clue, but I’ll let that one alone

do you think art is rational Astyanax?

I don’t

earlier – when I was blathering on about thought as art - I was trying to get to this. I keep asking what is art - why art?

hardly anyone will touch this question for some reason (maybe they’re just afraid to get too near me). But seriously – what is it?

I don’t know the answer, but the closest I can come to an answer that will satisfy is – it is tangible dreaming

I think whatever the purpose of dreaming – art is an extension of that somehow. We work out our understanding of the world, our experiences in life and a whole lot of information while dreaming. Our brain processes it all, rearranges it, notes some of it, files it away - knowledge and experience canned for use later on

I don’t dream for an audience – I don’t even dream for me – I just dream. The same way I grow skin

for creative people – creativity is almost an obsessive compulsive disorder – it cannot not be done. We’re always noting the color, the shade, the contrast, the angle...the flow of a sentence – choosing one word over another – a chord, harmony or rhythm - the turn of a foot, the gestures...

all of it is symbolism - even in art that appears to be mostly representational

I personally don’t think the rational reasons for making art that we give each other or tell ourselves matter. Whether they’re political or philosophical reasons – intended to shock, provoke, describe, explain, please or only decorate – the resulting art was still created by an irrational process

you tell me you wouldn’t write if there was no audience to write for – but I don’t believe you :-)

I’m not calling you a liar – but I am reasonably sure – you rearrange sentences in your head all the time and linger over certain words – committing things to paper isn’t necessary to that process

witnesses, applause and posterity are separate from the process – though not separate from our intentions and desires

But I make things for a living, as well as for pleasure.

Of course you do – we all do. That’s where it gets all messy. But in the beginning you discovered that you do what you do well. It was a discovery – not something handed to you – not something you went shopping for. You – the artist - got something from it before you realized that it could bring you other rewards beyond the pure satisfaction that comes from just doing it

What I'm saying here is that I understand the psychology. Even the most modest, the most antisocial and reclusive of artists wants people to see her work and be impressed by it.

I might seem all starry-eyed when I say this – but there is also something to be said about sharing the experience – just sharing it

Not – how cool am I for having made this, but – how cool is this?

I’m not naïve Astyanax – I grew up in the biz. I know all about the world of art and commerce – the politics, the posturing, the pain and suffering – the how cool am I for having made this schtick

I stand by what I said earlier on – the relationship between art and artist is intimate and private. No matter what the reason is for beginning a work or whatever happens after – they always have that time alone together first. ANd that time is special - meaningful - with or without any recognition or reward

The only other motive I can think of is creating pornography for one's personal titillation.

oh Astyanax - why do you got to go and make it all dirty? :-)

and – so what if we do?

Ultimately, it is a fitness advertisement. A type of male sexual strategy.

I agree this begs the question of why there are female artists, but that isn't really so hard to answer.

and I am a female artist begging for that answer

...And then someone else reads it and is impressed and the warmth and tingliness rise by orders of magnitude.

I can’t argue with that

Where does this meaning come from? Think about it.

is it inherent?

:-)

it comes from the knowledge and experience of all humanity gathered throughout all of our shared history

and then it comes from me - I get final say

especially about the worth part

reply to post by artistpoet

Your comments are a bit of a joke to me - Ilustrator indeed - Well I have been called many things and of course you are free to make your own interpretation - BUT to say my work is not art is a very very cheap way of undermining - I am an artist - ARE YOU?

As I said in an earlier post, I will leave those who know my work to decide whether I'm an artist or not. At any rate, I am not a painter.

Perhaps you buy into the Damain Hirst disease - My friend went to school with him - he is more a biologist with no basic artistic credentials

That sounds like a recommendation to me, frankly.

If you were to explain what you mean by 'the Damien Hirst disease' it would aid in securing a diagnosis. What are the symptoms? Thinking that a work of art should open and explore new perspectives on the subject? In that case I am most certainly a victim of Hirstitis, or whatever you'd like to call it.

The questions 'what is art?' and 'who is an artist?' are not interchangeable; see below.

*

reply to post by masqua

Every human being on this freaking planet is an artist in one way or another. If you crochet dainty ear muffs in a design you've invented, you're an artist. If you whittle little dogs out of a knot of wood, you're an artist.

Maybe so, masqua. This modest and generous viewpoint becomes the talented artist you are. In a similar vein, Paul McCartney once said 'a singer is someone who sings every day.'

However, every dainty crochet earmuff and knotwood dog is certainly not a work of art.

I looked at Bateman's work. It is incredibly good. But it is still illustration.

reply to post by Astyanax


astynax? where's your art! i want to see it.

link me up. u2u me or something

reply to post by Astyanax


You say you are not a painter - fair enough - then yours must be another area of Art.
We are all entitled to our own opinions - Re: Hirst
Damian Hirst enjoyed the attention of being part of the "Shock of the new"
He was known as a "Bad Boy" - Have you seen his earlier work for example - A photograph of a female model with a vibrator shoved up her rear - The vibrator had the words "Art Establishment" written on it - yours for a mere few thousand pounds ha ha. Hirst got the attention of Saatchi who saw this as a money spinner and so adopted Damian. So who the hell is Saatchi to dictate what is Art - "Painting is dead" was the cry of this era of art but the hypocrisy beggers belief when a few years ago it was declared "Painting is Alive" and Saatch sent his agents around the world buying up paintings regardless of any merit.
Hirst is part of the Establishment - Any artist worth their salt are an enemy of the Establishment such as William Blake. Rembrandt, The Pre Raphaelites etc etc.
Artists in the past could only survive with the patronage of the elite rich and powerful - But those times are gone now.
All this so called art that baffles ordinary people is a big fat con in which the artists themselves fool one another but ensure they get the rewards like Hirst does.

reply to post by Astyanax

I have many artist friends some of whom are well known established artists - Never have they considered my work as being that of an illustrator - So you show your own ignorance by calling it Illustration.
Do you paint - I do - I have my own technique similar to Rembrandt in that it is built up using many transparent layers of paint on canvas.
Like I say you show your ignorance or perhaps you are so unsure of your self you feel you need to attack others in a petty undermining way to make your self look like you actually know what your on about.
I am a painter - what are you

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


You make some great points
Yes Art like anything is an extension of thought in fact it would be impossible to do anything without thought.
Re Dreams - I paint some of my dreams so that I can manifest them onto something more permenent ie canvas.
I also write poetry and do many other creative things - I believe the source of Music Peotry Painting etc comes from the same source and is expressed/manifested in various forms.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I'm sorry for not replying earlier, Spiramirabilis, but parsing your posts isn't always easy for me the first time round. Let me just try to answer you questions, and see where that takes us.

do you think art is rational Astyanax?

Do you want to know whether I think making art is rational behaviour? I do. It is done for rational purposes, such as expressing what the artist cannot express in any other way, boosting the artist's reputation and self-esteem, and earning a living. None of that is irrational.

Do you want to know if I think art demands the engagement of reason to be properly appreciated? Most certainly I do. Bad art is stupid art, mostly.

Or are you asking whether I think the process of making art is rational? Knowing you, this is probably the pith of your question. Well, again--yes, I do. It has intuitive components, but intuition must be endorsed by reason or it is valueless. The making of art has unconsious components, episodes of altered consciousness during the process of creation and so on. All of us who create are familiar with these things. But a work of art isn't complete until the eye of reason has given it the once-over, and deemed it acceptable.

I keep asking what is art - why art?

If you aren't satisfied with the answers I have already supplied--fitness advertisement, status ploy--then I'm afraid I can't help you. You appear to be seeking an answer that will ennoble the act of creation, frame it as divine or mystical. All I can say is: been there, done that, had the feeling. Good, isn't it? Endorphins are wonderful things.

*

for creative people – creativity is almost an obsessive compulsive disorder – it cannot not be done. We’re always noting the color, the shade, the contrast, the angle...the flow of a sentence – choosing one word over another – a chord, harmony or rhythm - the turn of a foot, the gestures...

Yes. This is the result of years of conditioning and self-indulgence. Making art is an addiction.

I personally don’t think the rational reasons for making art that we give each other or tell ourselves matter. Whether they’re political or philosophical reasons – intended to shock, provoke, describe, explain, please or only decorate – the resulting art was still created by an irrational process.

The first part is true. Those are just lies artists tell to hide the truth, which is that they do it for purely selfish reasons--pleasure, social and sexual self-promotion. But the development of a work of art is rational, however woozy or stoned the artist was at the time. If it weren't, the artwork itself would be bizarre and irrational--an expression of true randomness. Some people on this thread seem to think Jackson Pollock's work is like that, but of course it isn't.

you tell me you wouldn’t write if there was no audience to write for – but I don’t believe you :-)

Won't take my word for it? Can't help you there, I'm afraid.

I am reasonably sure you rearrange sentences in your head all the time and linger over certain words – committing things to paper isn’t necessary to that process.

That's not writing, that's thinking about writing.

Not 'how cool am I for having made this,' but 'how cool is this'?

Are they separable? How can the artist, with so much skin in the game, possibly tell them apart?

I stand by what I said earlier on – the relationship between art and artist is intimate and private. No matter what the reason is for beginning a work or whatever happens after – they always have that time alone together first. And that time is special – meaningful – with or without any recognition or reward.

Are you talking about rewards separate and distinct from the simple pleasure of making something, and doing what one does best? Surely the relationship between a jet engine mechanic and a Rolls-Royce RB211 is special and meaningful in the same way, without any recognition or reward?

I am a female artist begging for that answer (to the question of why there are female artists).

1. Because in our species, females also indulge in courtship display, vying for first dibs on the available males.

2. Because human beings tend to be more or less androgynous, and some women make damn good men. I don't mean this in a hairy-dike way; have you ever watched video footage of Margaret Thatcher in her heyday? All woman, I assure you, but more of a man than any of the so-called men in her lapdog cabinet.

(The meaning comes from...) the knowledge and experience of all humanity gathered throughout all of our shared history. And then it comes from me - I get final say. Especially about the worth part.

You forgot our inner nature. But well done, all the same.

*

reply to post by undo

I'm a writer, undo.

reply to post by artistpoet

Like I say you show your ignorance or perhaps you are so unsure of your self you feel you need to attack others in a petty undermining way to make your self look like you actually know what your on about.

I am a painter - what are you?

See my reply to undo above. As a matter of fact, I've published a bit of art criticism in my time. People tend to take what I say on the subject seriously, too. Goodness knows why.

And that's enough about me. Now look here, mate: if you go putting your work on the internet or any other public forum, you had better learn to accept whatever criticism you get with the best grace you can possibly muster, and shut up about it. Never argue with a critic; anything you can possibly say has already been said better by the work itself. Isn't that why you painted it in the first place? To say what you couldn't say in words?

Here's how it works: you put your work up for the rest of us to see and we'll tell you whether you're an artist or not. It's not for you to say.

As for your Rembrandt-like brushstrokes, who gives a toss about technique anyway? I've spent all my life learning and refining the techniques of writing English prose. Do I think about technique when I'm writing? Perhaps fleetingly, but my mind is focused on what I am trying to say, not on how I'm saying it. One learns technique only so that one may be free of it--free to do what one wishes, to reach the place beyond it where the truly original work is done. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, all artists are, at root, amateurs.

reply to post by Astyanax

I'm sorry for not replying earlier, Spiramirabilis, but parsing your posts isn't always easy for me the first time round. Let me just try to answer you questions, and see where that takes us.

:-)

you're very polite

how lucky for me you're so straight forward - and now I see where your answers have left us, I need to decide whether or not there's anything left to say

I'm pretty sure there is

reply to post by Astyanax

Never argue with a critic

(stifling a laugh here)

oh, hell: LOLOLOL!!!

seriously, Astyanax?

first of all - where's the fun in that?

2nd - they are hands off then? Nobody critiques the critic? Are they some sort of divine authority?

it is bad form - I'll give you that - the artist is in the worst possible position in all this

but there are ways around it

:-)

(still chuckling)

reply to post by masqua


just wandering through this thread again...

here you go masqua - meet the king:
www.kuhnsnhuk.com...

:-)

I'm sure you're already familiar - and I know we all have our personal preferences

that is the point of this thread I think - I've forgotten where we are now :-)

Bateman does some gorgeous work, but I have no words to describe what Kuhn's work does for me and to me - brilliant artist in this naturalist category, astonishing painter, also a seller of prints. He started out as an illustrator - but where did he end up?

this is an interesting argument - and one that interests me personally

it's hard to say where that line is drawn - and if the line really matters

it does to some - Kuhn is a good example of someone that learned quite a bit from commercial illustration - but then went on to something else (my opinion)

your posting of Batemen compelled me to share the work of a man that can almost make me cry just looking at his stuff. Not just because of the subject matter - but as far as mood, message - and just damn good painting - Kuhn is my guy

reply to post by undo


That is a very nice piece of work! I like it a lot better than the stuff at the beginning of the thread... :-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
here you go masqua - meet the king:
www.kuhnsnhuk.com...

You know what I really like about Bob Kuhn(?)... it's all about action and movement. You can predetermine what each animal is about to do. Whether it's sniffing the air for the scent of prey or the muscular tensions evident in their posture prior to an attack, it's palpable.

More than painterly detail, as Bateman is famous for, the focus, instead, is on movement. His animals don't 'pose'.

reply to post by masqua

Whether it's sniffing the air for the scent of prey or the muscular tensions evident in their posture prior to an attack, it's palpable.

:-)

yes - there's movement - in the subject - in the landscapes...

he isn't a photo-realist - it's as much art as a Cezanne

(that wasn't a slam at photo realism - just not my first love)

like I said - and others before me obviously - we all have our preferences

and listening to other people talk about art is one of my favorite things - pro and con - love it all :-)

in this category (wildlife) I appreciate Kuhn on so many levels - but he is also just such a great painter

I've seen two of the pieces on that site in a gallery - close up - and they're amazing

edit to add: he's also a genius with color

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh dear - I never realised you were an art critic - that must mean you know what art is.
I can talk art technique and such all day long - maybe I should be a critic too in that case

Do you want to know whether I think making art is rational behaviour? I do. It is done for rational purposes, such as expressing what the artist cannot express in any other way...

I like this answer – because it’s true. But I have to ask – why can’t we express it any other way? And what is it exactly that’s so difficult to express? Annoying questions – but I don’t ask to annoy

...but intuition must be endorsed by reason or it is valueless.

:-) I like the word endorsed

The making of art has unconsious components, episodes of altered consciousness during the process of creation and so on. All of us who create are familiar with these things.

yes...

But a work of art isn't complete until the eye of reason has given it the once-over, and deemed it acceptable.

or, until it looks like something reason can trust. Maybe art is the wolf in sheep’s clothing - not the product of an altered state, but one of our alternate states come for a visit

If you aren't satisfied with the answers I have already supplied--fitness advertisement, status ploy--then I'm afraid I can't help you.

I think your answers make perfect sense – it’s just that I think there’s more to it than that

You appear to be seeking an answer that will ennoble the act of creation, frame it as divine or mystical.

:-) really? You can’t be serious. If you are, then I have to say – your parser is on the fritz. But this would explain why you chose to bypass the entire subject of dreams – it’s a big fuzzy, slippery-slidey grey area of iffiness that probably annoys most of you scientific materialist types into a conniption

but it doesn’t have to – we all dream

I’m just curious about what dreaming actually is – and how our (nonexistent) minds work – that’s all. And then I wonder if art isn’t just a physical manifestation of the same thing that happens every single night inside all of our heads

see? no spooks, no spells - just our brains

you did circumvent the whole thing very quietly and politely though – so, thank you :-)

...for creative people – creativity is almost an obsessive compulsive disorder – it cannot not be done...
Yes. This is the result of years of conditioning and self-indulgence. Making art is an addiction.

interesting – I think these obssesive/compulsive urges are in us from the start. You say addiction – I say compulsion – am I splitting hairs? But then, self indulgence? curious about that...living is self indulgent – it’s hard to avoid. Of course creativity is self indulgent

But the development of a work of art is rational, however woozy or stoned the artist was at the time. If it weren't, the artwork itself would be bizarre and irrational--an expression of true randomness. Some people on this thread seem to think Jackson Pollock's work is like that, but of course it isn't.

but it is like that to some people Astyanax – people who haven’t yet learned how to see it will see Jackson Pollock as either a fraud or a crazy person

and yes – I know exactly how that sounds. I won’t apologize for it though, because it’s not about elitism – it’s about experience. Anyone can learn how to look at things differently. I learned how to look at things differently – it happens

back to your point: the development may be rational, the well we draw from – maybe not so much

That's not writing, that's thinking about writing.

The two can be separate? Also – if you say you wouldn’t write for yourself alone – you wouldn’t :-)

Are you talking about rewards separate and distinct from the simple pleasure of making something, and doing what one does best?

no – what you’ve just said is what I meant and all I meant

2. Because human beings tend to be more or less androgynous, and some women make damn good men.

some men make excellent women – but they never take that as a compliment :-)

but I agree – some women make excellent men – it does explain some of it

reply to post by Astyanax


also...if it would spare you some parsing - maybe we could just agree that it's a mixture of both rational and irrational

:-)