[I] Art with Meanings. Long.
Owen Morgan-Jones
the central themes of the episode was art. The plot consisted
of two girls in an art class having a fight about religion. Girl A,
a Christian, had done a pretty enough picture of a sky and some
trees, while Girl B had done a sculpture depicting a
disembowelled koala being crucified, supposedly representing
the way we are trashing the environment. Girls B's sculpture
was receiving wide critical acclaim and was picked for a local
exhibition while Girl A protested that it was offensive to Christians.
when the teachers and the gallery owner were disputing this with
her they were using phrases like "Art should challenge us, it should
not always be what we want to see. It should make us feel
uncomfortable if it has a point to make". Since bloody when?
The famous art of the past never set out to make people feel ill
or to "challenge" them. It was made as a thing of beauty. The
pieces which have true longevity, by which I mean things that are
still considered brilliant centuries after they were made, never set
out to shock or make a comment on the environment or the class
system or sexism. The same goes for quite a lot of music as well.
When Mozart or Beethoven sat down to write a symphony, did they
want to comment on the times or did they want to write a beautiful
piece of music. I may be wrong about that but I don't think so.
You may be getting the impression that I hate all modern art.
Not the case. It is "post-modern" [spit] art that I have a gripe
against. I went round the Royal Academy last summer and it
was full of paintings that were basically any old rubbish but
which the artist felt entitled to charge in excess of 100,000
pounds for because it had some kind of inner meaning that
you only knew about if you were told about it. As to what
Damien Hurst's work (of which I have seen a fair bit with
me own eyes) I have no idea. I propose a campaign for
as return to more... shall we say *traditional* art where pieces
are painted or made for no other reason than they are beautiful
or fascinating to look at. It is the initial appearance that should
be foremost in the artist's mind, not the meaning.
[1] A weekly drama/soap set in an XXXXian High school for those who don't
know
Owen
--
The Beat Goes On
Be Yourself, Be Free
afpianced to Claire :-)
Replace "melon" with "mjatks" to contact me. If you want to that is.
Miq
wrote
> "Art should challenge us, it should
>not always be what we want to see. It should make us feel
>uncomfortable if it has a point to make". Since bloody when?
Well, that's hardly a new idea. People have been saying that since
at least the beginning of this century - and they would have said
it earlier if they'd been into this sort of navel-gazing back then.
In Victorian times, the 'social realists' challenged convention by
painting ordinary working people as heroes - in heroic poses on
huge canvasses. Artists such as von Herkomer and Whistler were
quite consciously trying to upset their more staid contemporaries.
In France, the Impressionists were doing something similar - an
attitude that got them excluded from the official salons during the
1870s.
One generation's outrage is the next's incomprehensible convention.
You may be familiar with 'The Death of General Wolfe', a very
famous painting by Benjamin West, 1771. It's one of the most
famous of 'history' paintings, depicting the death of a great
national hero: the flag is raised above him, his officers stand
around, a Noble Savage kneels at his feet. It may surprise you to
learn that, in its day, this picture was considered outrageously
sacreligious - because it clothed the protagonists in contemporary
dress. It was a universally accepted convention that historical
figures should be depicted in *classical* dress - togas, basically
- as befitted their status as timeless heroes.
The most effective art is art that makes you think; art that you'll
still be thinking about days or years after seeing it. The very
best paintings of the past are those that achieve this. If you've
seen the *originals* of the Mona Lisa, or Rembrandt's portrait of
his son in a monk's habit, or Michelangelo's David, or Constable's
Haywain, or Breughel's Hunters in the Snow, you'll know what I
mean.
If a modern painting simply makes you say "Ewww!", and blot it out
as a repulsive memory, then it's failed. But if it makes you think
back, days later, and wonder what was going through the artist's
mind, then it's achieved something.
--
Miq - afpiance to the breathtaking MEG, unforgettable Supermouse
and artistic Heather
Medusa
piece back? Or was it ceremoniously destroyed in the name of good
taste?
--
Medusa
From Wales, where men are men and sheep are nervous...
Change jinkx to euryale to reply
Owen Morgan-Jones
>I had to go to dinner before the end of that episode - did she get the
>piece back? Or was it ceremoniously destroyed in the name of good
>taste?
Nah, It was the goody two-shoes girl who nicked it and then brought it
back cos she learnt tolerance. Makes you sick dunnit?
Steve James
(Owen Morgan-Jones) wrote:
>"Art should challenge us, it should
> not always be what we want to see. It should make us feel
> uncomfortable if it has a point to make". Since bloody when?
It is easier not to have to learn a trade and certainly quicker. Why spend
years perfecting your skill when you can pop round the corner, buy a
coat-hanger hang it on a picture hook in a gallery and call it Missing
Person and flog it for a fortune.
Steve (Steeljam) *BF (UU)*
Miq
>It is easier not to have to learn a trade and certainly quicker. Why spend
>years perfecting your skill when you can pop round the corner, buy a
>coat-hanger hang it on a picture hook in a gallery and call it Missing
>Person and flog it for a fortune.
Why indeed?
If you or anyone else thinks this is possible, for heaven's sake
get out there and do it. Let us know how you get on.
It needn't even interfere with your education/career - just in
case it doesn't work *quite* like that.
-
Miq - afpiance to the rational MEG, sceptical Supermouse and artistic Heather
Inneke Geysen
>In article <78dk4p$7dt$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ow...@melon.freeserve.co.uk
>(Owen Morgan-Jones) wrote:
>
>>"Art should challenge us, it should
>> not always be what we want to see. It should make us feel
>> uncomfortable if it has a point to make". Since bloody when?
>years perfecting your skill when you can pop round the corner, buy a
>coat-hanger hang it on a picture hook in a gallery and call it Missing
>Person and flog it for a fortune.
>
I don't know why I bother to respond to a message of someone who thinks like
this, because I never seem to be able to change their view anyway, but I'll
do it anyway.
It may seem easy to come up with that, but that's only because you've seen
similar things before. Anyone who could go back in time could become rich
inventing stuff they'd already seen.
When Marcel Duchamp invented his readymades around 1914, it was new
and it had a meaning. Art has to do with ethics in stead of esthetics, is
what he was saying. People were being exploited in factories. WWI was
starting and the common people were sent to the front to fight for the
interests of the very same factory-owners who did the exploiting.
The rich, of course, stayed at home in their chique salons, decorated with
meaningless 'art', beautiful pictures, nothing shocking, certainly nothing
to make you stop and think about. So when Duchamp clued a coathanger or a
urinoir to the floor and called it art, it was an act of rebellion.
To the rich industrialists he was saying : These manufactured objects, made
by hard-working people in your factories really are a lot more meaningfull
and representative of this time than whatever nice portraits or landscapes
you've put up in your houses.
IMHO, someone who feels that art should be nothing more than a pretty
picture, is someone who prefers not to see the ugly aspects of our society.
Maybe because deep down they know part of it is their fault (?)
Or maybe they just think that art is not important (?)
love,
Inneke
--
AFP Code 1.1 ANL-BE d+ s-: a-- U- R-- F h- P? OS: C? M- pp L c B Cn PT Pu70+
5 X? MT+ e++ r++ x+ end
AFPfriend to Brett
Richard Eney
Owen Morgan-Jones <Ow...@melon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I was watching "Heartbreak High"[1] t'other day
>exhibition while Girl A protested that it was offensive to Christians.
>when the teachers and the gallery owner were disputing this with
>not always be what we want to see. It should make us feel
>uncomfortable if it has a point to make". Since bloody when?
>or to "challenge" them. It was made as a thing of beauty. The
>pieces which have true longevity, by which I mean things that are
>still considered brilliant centuries after they were made, never set
>out to shock or make a comment on the environment or the class
>system or sexism.
Hieronymus Bosch's artwork was weird-looking in its time, but very popular
and he got many commissions to do more of it. Most of his work comments
very harshly on the culture of the time, illustrating proverbs[1] and
criticizing misbehavior and foolishness.
[1] Proverbs so long-forgotten now that we have to be told about them, and
it's hard to find out what they are, so most of the pictures are
meaningless to a modern audience.
Various centuries' worth of Danse Macabre, Harrowings of Hell, and so on
were also made to make a point and to shock and upset the viewer, in those
cases with the intent of shocking them into reforming their (presumed)
misbehavior.
Not that I don't agree with some of your response - I don't generally like
the sort of thing that I see labeled post-modern art, and the item you
described from the tv show I would not consider art but political
cartooning in 3-D. It's just that there is historical precedent for
disturbing artwork.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Inneke Geysen <Inneke...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
A lot about the meaning of some modern art, which I've snipped so my
newsreader will let me post a fairly short response.
>The rich, of course, stayed at home in their chique salons, decorated with
>meaningless 'art', beautiful pictures, nothing shocking, certainly nothing
>to make you stop and think about.
Many of them may not have had the slightest idea of the meaning intended
by some of the pretty pictures, especially if the pictures were antiques.
Quite a lot of 'pretty picture' art has allegorical meaning.
=Tamar
Trina
<Inneke...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
[snip everything, look up the thread if you want to know!]
A woman once took time to explain the symbols in apainting of a pretty
lady to me, and I found it most interesting.
Unfortunately, the only thing I really remember being told is that the
fact that there was an upright, full vessel of water in the picture
meant she hadn't had sex.
There are many symbols in painting, and presumably other arts, that
have meaning.
A bit like AFPCode, really.
Kiss,
Trina....
--
Delighted to be AFPMarried to Antti-in spite of his mysterous lover :)
Pleased as punch to be AFPianced to Noel and Slarvibarglhee
Thrilled to be otherwise AFPrelated to Turtle, Claire, Tamara, Ańjeo
Tigger, Tachyon and Jamie. Kisses to you all....
Gid Holyoake
share with us..
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Steve James <stee...@cix.co.uk> wrote
> >It is easier not to have to learn a trade and certainly quicker. Why spend
> >years perfecting your skill when you can pop round the corner, buy a
> >coat-hanger hang it on a picture hook in a gallery and call it Missing
> >Person and flog it for a fortune.
>
> Why indeed?
>
> If you or anyone else thinks this is possible, for heaven's sake
> get out there and do it. Let us know how you get on.
>
> It needn't even interfere with your education/career - just in
> case it doesn't work *quite* like that.
Hmmm.. this is down to perception again isn't it.. why do some people
dislike Damien Hirst's works?.. because they don't know whether he's an
artist or not.. take someone like Pablo Picasso as an example.. or Roy
Lichtenstein.. or Andy Warhol.. they served their apprenticeships, and
are known to have produced pieces of work that are recognisable to the
average man in the street as pictures of something that they can
understand.. look at very early Henry Moore sculptures.. they are very
far removed from the stylised figures of his more celebrated works.. in
other words, we know they have the grounding in "real" art (as seen by
your average punter), and have learned their trade.. if they then decide
to try and explore other avenues that push the boundaries a little, we
can understand it, because we know where their starting point is..
Now take someone like Damien.. the only celebrated, or indeed known,
works of his are the supposed boundary stretchers.. does yer actual
average man in the street have access to his life studies, or his still
lifes, or his anatomical structure works?.. no.. we don't.. all we can
see are the works that are presented to us by the media.. I've seen
nothing of Mr. Hirst's that persuades me that he is an artist..
admittedly I have no knowledge as to whether some of the earlier, more
recognisable works have been made or not.. but to me, this is where the
difference truly lies.. anyone can randomly daub coloured splotches on a
piece of canvas, or slice a cow in two and put it in a giant glass fish
tank full of formaldehyde.. only an artist can achieve the combination
of both the obvious and the obscure..
If you have passed through the "painting things so that they look like
the things you are painting" or the "sculpting things so that they look
like the things you are sculpting" stage, then many more people will be
willing to accept the fact that you may see things somewhat differently
from themselves, and may be more amenable to the more stylistic or
figurative approaches to the mediums that you care to try.. without the
knowledge of the legitimacy of the artist however, few are likely to
believe that piling a load of bricks up in the corner of the Tate
Gallery is art as they understand it..
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
esmi
said:
<snip the major part of an interesting post>
>If you have passed through the "painting things so that they look like
>the things you are painting" or the "sculpting things so that they look
>like the things you are sculpting" stage, then many more people will be
>willing to accept the fact that you may see things somewhat differently
>from themselves, and may be more amenable to the more stylistic or
>figurative approaches to the mediums that you care to try.. without the
>knowledge of the legitimacy of the artist however, few are likely to
>believe that piling a load of bricks up in the corner of the Tate
>Gallery is art as they understand it..
Hmmm...Ok. I can understand the point you're making here which
(if I can paraphrase you) is that the people are more likely to
accept an "unusual" piece as Art if they know that it's producer
is a bona fide artist.
However, isn't this, at best, people simply being led into a
particular opinion or, at worst, being snobbish? Surely an piece
of art should be judged on it's own merits rather than whether
the person who produced it can also daub a decent watercolour
etc.
It reminds me strongly of the trick that has been played a number
of times on the (so-called) Art World ie pieces of work by
"non-artists" [1] are displayed under the fictional name of a
hitherto undiscovered artistic genius. Very often, the "experts"
have been fooled into making the sort of comments re the artistic
merit of the "work" which they would *never* have made had they
known the artist(s) true identity.
My own feeling is that it cannot be right to automatically assume
that an artist *always* produces Art. Everyone has their bad days
and some geniuses use up their good days very early on in the
career. After all, a woodturner doesn't always produce good
furniture. He produces a fair amount of firewood too. :-)
esmi
--
"... He was determined to discover the underlying logic behind the universe.
Which was going to be hard, because there wasn't one." (Terry Pratchett - Mort)
Read the FAQs lately? http://www.lspace.org/faq/
Medusa
where a guy had a paint enema, then stood above a large canvas and
voided masses of blue paint? Apparantly the 'meaning' was "modern art
is sh1t, therefore here's a picture I painted with my @r5e." Or
something.
I just thought he needed help personally. Or a cork...
James Harvey
>In <MPG.1115d151e...@news.lspace.org>, Gid Holyoake
>said:
><snip the major part of an interesting post>
>>If you have passed through the "painting things so that they look like
>>the things you are painting" or the "sculpting things so that they look
>>like the things you are sculpting" stage, then many more people will be
>>willing to accept the fact that you may see things somewhat differently
>>from themselves, and may be more amenable to the more stylistic or
>>figurative approaches to the mediums that you care to try.. without the
>>knowledge of the legitimacy of the artist however, few are likely to
>>believe that piling a load of bricks up in the corner of the Tate
>>Gallery is art as they understand it..
>
>Hmmm...Ok. I can understand the point you're making here which
>(if I can paraphrase you) is that the people are more likely to
>accept an "unusual" piece as Art if they know that it's producer
>is a bona fide artist.
>
>However, isn't this, at best, people simply being led into a
>particular opinion or, at worst, being snobbish? Surely an piece
>of art should be judged on it's own merits rather than whether
>the person who produced it can also daub a decent watercolour
>etc.
>
is pushing back boundaries in some way accepted by the public is to have a
recognised artist produce it. Then, if the style, genre, form or whatever
else is new about it is accepted as a valid piece of 'art' then others can
come in and make their contributions. Of course, if it is not accepted
people usually make this known...
Of course, this doesn't only apply to art as painting - music, photography,
even literature have all had their new styles come in and be eventually
accepted. Many musical styles of today (I'm thinking more of classical music
here) were considered revolutionary a hundred years ago, and the popular
music of a hundred years ago is now considered old hat and 'classical'. In
most cases people who composed this 'revolutionary' music were
classically-trained composers who pushed back their boundaries of their art,
sometimes at the expense of huge criticism. [1]
>It reminds me strongly of the trick that has been played a number
>of times on the (so-called) Art World ie pieces of work by
>"non-artists" [1] are displayed under the fictional name of a
>hitherto undiscovered artistic genius. Very often, the "experts"
>have been fooled into making the sort of comments re the artistic
>merit of the "work" which they would *never* have made had they
>known the artist(s) true identity.
>
Hmmm. Have people ever studied the opposite effect (i.e. putting a
little-known but artistically valid work by someone famous up as a work of
an unknown)? It'd be interesting to know what the results show.
>My own feeling is that it cannot be right to automatically assume
>that an artist *always* produces Art. Everyone has their bad days
>and some geniuses use up their good days very early on in the
>career. After all, a woodturner doesn't always produce good
>furniture. He produces a fair amount of firewood too. :-)
>
Again, agreed. One thing that really annoys me, in fact, is when people heap
praise on dross just because it was created by a genius having a bad day.
Taking the example of music (again, 'cos it's my thing) many composers went
through periods of their lives where they had to write amazingly long works
very quickly (e.g. symphonies in a week consistently) and the quality
suffered - but then when they had more time they came up with gems. [2]
-James
[1] Why are there so many meanings for 'classical'?
* 'Classical' music - not pop music
* the Classical period - before the Romantic period
* Classically trained - trained in the prevailing style at the time
Confusion...
[2] Of course, some composers could write masterpieces in a stupidly short
time. I can't remember who it was that wrote an opera in a fortnight (I'm at
work and all my music books are at home) but, like, wow. Takes me weeks to
write a decent _tune_, never mind a fully orchestrated opera.
in...@fdhoekstra.nl
>
> In <MPG.1115d151e...@news.lspace.org>, Gid Holyoake
> said:
>
> <snip the major part of an interesting post>
>
> >If you have passed through the "painting things so that they look like
> >the things you are painting" or the "sculpting things so that they look
> >like the things you are sculpting" stage, then many more people will be
> >willing to accept the fact that you may see things somewhat differently
> >from themselves, and may be more amenable to the more stylistic or
> >figurative approaches to the mediums that you care to try.. without the
> >knowledge of the legitimacy of the artist however, few are likely to
> >believe that piling a load of bricks up in the corner of the Tate
> >Gallery is art as they understand it..
>
> Hmmm...Ok. I can understand the point you're making here which
> (if I can paraphrase you) is that the people are more likely to
> accept an "unusual" piece as Art if they know that it's producer
> is a bona fide artist.
>
> However, isn't this, at best, people simply being led into a
> particular opinion or, at worst, being snobbish? Surely an piece
> of art should be judged on it's own merits rather than whether
> the person who produced it can also daub a decent watercolour
> etc.
>
> of times on the (so-called) Art World ie pieces of work by
> "non-artists" [1] are displayed under the fictional name of a
> hitherto undiscovered artistic genius. Very often, the "experts"
> have been fooled into making the sort of comments re the artistic
> merit of the "work" which they would *never* have made had they
> known the artist(s) true identity.
Yes. Even worse is that they make the same kind of comments
about works of art made by toddlers, chimpanzees and elephants.
Which leads me to conclude that some art at least is called
art, not because it is any good, but because it is presented as
art; and a lot of what is nowadays produced is just not of very
high quality.
My own opinion, which is very much a matter of taste, is that
all art should be, at least, pleasing to the senses. A painting
that is not beautiful is not a good painting - and beautiful
means a lot more than just pretty. If it can also show us
something, or teach, very good; but if it isn't pleasing to
the eye in itself, it's an illustration, maybe a good one, but
not art.
So much of modern art is not made with this in mind. It is
considered enough that it be announced to be art for it to
_be_ art. Much of it does, to me at least, convey the impression
that here is not an artist who wants to make art, here is
someone who wants to _have made_ art.
> My own feeling is that it cannot be right to automatically assume
> that an artist *always* produces Art. Everyone has their bad days
> and some geniuses use up their good days very early on in the
> career. After all, a woodturner doesn't always produce good
> furniture. He produces a fair amount of firewood too. :-)
True. But what he produces is not good furniture just because
he calls himself a woodturner; it had better be a quality
job. I don't see any reason not to apply the same criterion to
art.
Richard
frogjuice
Medusa wrote in message ...
Paul's)
>where a guy had a paint enema, then stood above a large canvas
and
>voided masses of blue paint? Apparantly the 'meaning' was
"modern art
>is sh1t, therefore here's a picture I painted with my @r5e." Or
>something.
Yep. It's not one of the techniques I learnt, luckily for me.
He'll be paying a lot of money to a proctologist some day,
so I hope for his sake that Someone liked his work.
Me, I like Giger and Dali.
not pictures drawn with orifices.
Sam(antha)
--
Afpfiancee a Dids
Owen Morgan-Jones
Medusa wrote in message ...
>Did anyone else see that article in "Bizarre" (no, not my copy, Paul's)
>where a guy had a paint enema, then stood above a large canvas and
>voided masses of blue paint? Apparantly the 'meaning' was "modern art
>is sh1t, therefore here's a picture I painted with my @r5e." Or
>something.
No, but I have seen a picture that is simply a blue canvass. I believe the
artist wanted to show off hid new paint.
David S. Greenley
>
> No, but I have seen a picture that is simply a blue canvass. I
> believe the artist wanted to show off hid new paint.
Yeah, well I've seen[1] a film were the picture was just a blue screen
the whole time[2]. Actually the sound was a simulations broadcast on
the radio so you could listen in stereo, which struck me as odd
because you could just be looking at a blue piece of paper instead of
the screen?[3]
It was imaginatively titled, 'Blue' as I recall, and I'm sure that if
I was patient with it it was probably a very interesting, artistic
film which is relaxing on the eyes and makes you go into a very
reflective state of meditation...
DG
[1] OK I use the word 'seen' loosely, I got bored after a while.
[2] Umm, yes I guess that I didn't see it all then the screen might
have changed after I turned it off...
[3] But I guess that's not as artistic.
Tamara Rigg
> >I was watching "Heartbreak High"[1] t'other day
> <snip>
> >exhibition while Girl A protested that it was offensive to Christians.
> >when the teachers and the gallery owner were disputing this with
> >her they were using phrases like "Art should challenge us, it should
> >not always be what we want to see. It should make us feel
> >uncomfortable if it has a point to make". Since bloody when?
> >The famous art of the past never set out to make people feel ill
> >or to "challenge" them. It was made as a thing of beauty. The
> >pieces which have true longevity, by which I mean things that are
> >still considered brilliant centuries after they were made, never set
> >out to shock or make a comment on the environment or the class
> >system or sexism.
the thing is that you're not giving modern art a chance....
you say the "good" [1] art is the old one, that has lasted several
centuries of criticism, and that modern art is not "good" [1] because it
doesn't copy them, or continue by those art styles.
but that is impossible, as the world change the art change [2] and in
the past 200 years the world almost turned upside down, so it was
impossible for the art to remain the same as it was before (or even
similar to it).
so modern art hasn't gone through several centuries of criticism, but it
doesn't mean it isn't as beautiful as those works that did. even if it
is in a different way.
and if it challenges - all the better! all art styles were challenging
at first, and considered weird (yes - weird). impressionism was, and so
was the renaissance [3].
so there.
tamara
[1] if i find a better word i'll let you know
[2] i think you'll agree when i say art is the mirror of the world?
[3] go back and read your history books - at the time of the
renaissance, the majority preferred what was called the "international
gothic" style (if i can translate correctly - learned it in hebrew not
english).
--
so bye love xxxxx tamara 6030720
a noseless smily :)
afpiance to Thorin and to SpareTurtle and afpgirlfriend to Chris
afpsister to the Emma and to Trina
Tamara Rigg
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 03:32:29 +0100, "Inneke Geysen"
> <Inneke...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>
> [snip everything, look up the thread if you want to know!]
>
> A woman once took time to explain the symbols in apainting of a pretty
> lady to me, and I found it most interesting.
> Unfortunately, the only thing I really remember being told is that the
> fact that there was an upright, full vessel of water in the picture
> meant she hadn't had sex.
> There are many symbols in painting, and presumably other arts, that
> have meaning.
>
>
i assume it was a flemish painting?
i could be mistaken but flemish painting is full of symbolism.
easiest one to point out is "the marriage of arnolfini" (i think it's
how it's called, i called it in hebrew - so i don't know)..
but that too is allot of symbolism (never too much), so i won't start
here....
oh well - i'll stop ranting and go away
dans...@dansmart.com
> Trina wrote:
> >
>
> i assume it was a flemish painting?
> i could be mistaken but flemish painting is full of symbolism.
> easiest one to point out is "the marriage of arnolfini" (i think it's
> how it's called, i called it in hebrew - so i don't know)..
> but that too is allot of symbolism (never too much), so i won't start
> here....
>
<inexplicable ramble>
Once upon a time in a galaxy far away...
I worked on a dig (archealogical sp?). The gentleman in charge, one
Brynn Walters, a sarcastic welshman by inclination[1], used to explain
(at length given 1/2 a chance) that the biggest problem with archaeology
was that whenever they found anything they didn't recognize their
immediate response would be: "that's religous that is", "deep mystical
symbolism in that piece of pottery there is", "look it's got a picture of
a goat on it, they must have worshipped goats".
At which point he would take a large swig of whatever alcohol was available
and swear (a lot).
</inexplicable ramble>
I have developed a deep seated cynicism to literary criticism, particularly
criticism that attempts to find meaning in art (literature, painting or
whatever), suspecting that symbolism like beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. I have read a number of learned essays on "Alice in Wonderland".
There is no disputing that the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgeson[2] was a very
odd bloke, but to attempt to extract meaning/symbolism from Alice is a
huge mistake.
<worrying tendency to relevance>
Pterry's works give an insight into his characters political, religous
and social beliefs. It is to my mind likely that his beliefs match those
of his most sympathetic characters. But this belief is based on
conversations out side the scope of his literature. I could I believe
defend any number of interpretations of his work that would prove that he
supported my position of choice.
</worrying tendency to relevance>
Challenge of the day:
Using only the text of the Bible, demonstrate the absolute correctness of
your most deeply held belief.
Second challenge of the day:
Using only the text of the Bible, demonstrate the absolute correctness of
assertion that I prefer Frosties to Corn Flakes.
Dan
(my keyboard is more sober than me)
[1] By birth too, as it happens.
[2] Speeeeellllllig lef as an eckersize fo de reeder.
Miq
<snip inexplicable, though really quite good, ramble>
>I have developed a deep seated cynicism to literary criticism, particularly
>criticism that attempts to find meaning in art (literature, painting or
>whatever), suspecting that symbolism like beauty is in the eye of the
>beholder.
You have a point. Certainly the sort of lit crit that the likes of
me engage on hereabouts is an exercise in interpretation, not
translation. We project our own meanings into the text, and to a
large extent we see what we expect to see. I think that's why
Tamar and I so seldom agree. ;o)
But that doesn't make it any less valid as an exercise, IMHO. If I
can explain my own reactions to a piece of art in such a way as to
help others appreciate it, then I've done something worthwhile. As
to whether Pterry ever intended such layers of meaning to be read
into it - why does it matter? A work of art exists so that people
will react to it, not just "ask the creator".
>I have read a number of learned essays on "Alice in Wonderland".
>There is no disputing that the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgeson[2] was a very
>odd bloke, but to attempt to extract meaning/symbolism from Alice is a
>huge mistake.
Here, OTOH, I agree. If the main message of a critique is that
"the author was a collossal pervert", then I really don't see how
that can improve anyone's enjoyment much.
><worrying tendency to relevance>
>Pterry's works give an insight into his characters political, religous
>and social beliefs. It is to my mind likely that his beliefs match those
>of his most sympathetic characters. But this belief is based on
>conversations out side the scope of his literature. I could I believe
>defend any number of interpretations of his work that would prove that he
>supported my position of choice.
></worrying tendency to relevance>
Again, well said. To my mind it's a mistake to try to guess the
author's intentions beyond a certain point. Art is for you to
react to; it's not some sort of coded message to be deciphered
'correctly'.
--
Miq
"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not:
for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."
Mark Brown
> I have developed a deep seated cynicism to literary criticism, particularly
> criticism that attempts to find meaning in art (literature, painting or
> whatever), suspecting that symbolism like beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder. I have read a number of learned essays on "Alice in Wonderland".
> There is no disputing that the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgeson[2] was a very
> odd bloke, but to attempt to extract meaning/symbolism from Alice is a
> huge mistake.
There may be meaning in a work. They are by and by large unrelated to
the intentions of the author - sometimes you see explicit references
to a "model author" who actually intended everything the "model
reader" can see in the text.
A certain level of analysis is reasonable and often interesting. It's
just that some people seem to take it to unwarranted extremes.
--
Mark Brown mailto:bro...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Owen Morgan-Jones
Chris Horry wrote in message ...
>Tamara Rigg <t_r...@hotmail.com> stated:
<snip the words of two lovely people who seem to be having
a go at me>
The pair of you seem to be suggesting that I hate *all* modern
art. Not the case, as I think I said. There are large amounts
of modern art which I do like; Mondrian, Picasso, Hepworth,
Lichtenstein, Rothko, etc, to give some examples. My point is
that Meaning should not come at the expense of Beauty, as it
almost certainly does in the work of Damain Hirst, for example.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I have seen large
amounts his work and I have seen nothing I find in the least
attractive. I particularly dislike this phase of art whereby a
budding young artist slaps any old crap (in the case of this
years Turner Prize Winner, that can be taken literally!) onto a
canvas, say that it is deeply symbolic and then walk to the bank
to cash his cheque.
As to art holding up a mirror to life, I say; but what of Mondrian's
Broadway Boogie Woogie, or Picasso's Guernica. These
paintings can certainly challenge us, but they are also fascinating
to look at. A dead cow or sheep is not fascinating, it's just
disgusting. Take also the work of Dali, they are deeply surreal
and symbolic, I daresay, and yet you cannot help looking at them
again and again.
I hope that clarifies my point of view somewhat.
Graham Higgins
> Medusa wrote in message ...
> >Did anyone else see that article in "Bizarre" (no, not my copy,
> Paul's)
> >where a guy had a paint enema, then stood above a large canvas
> and
> >voided masses of blue paint?
Conceptual Art. Once you've described it, I get the idea; I know
enough to remind me why I don't get 'Bizarre'.
> Apparantly the 'meaning' was
> "modern art
> >is sh1t, therefore here's a picture I painted with my @r5e." Or
> >something.
'Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers..!' (That's Flanders & Swann, not what
the crew call the Teletubbies.)
>
> Yep. It's not one of the techniques I learnt, luckily for me.
> He'll be paying a lot of money to a proctologist some day,
> so I hope for his sake that Someone liked his work.
> Me, I like Giger and Dali.
> not pictures drawn with orifices.
See, if he'd have said it was a protest against the rip-off
prices of Drawing Orifice Supplies, you'd say 'Not quite how I'd have
put it, but...'
I've just been to see the Sensation show, so this question came
to mind in your last sentence: if you're attracted to all that visceral
stuff, what do you make of Damien Hirst's diced and dunked animal
carcasses? I'm sure you've seen press photos, but as above, the object
is pretty much an illustration of the description.
On the other hand, it was very odd watching people's behaviour
around Damien's Artburgers. The gallery crowd were really poring over
the textures, the really rather intricate *forms* pressed to the glass,
as if Dr. Hirst had built the beast in his castle retreat and here
presented his handiwork for public inspection.
So is Damien encouraging the same kind of morbidity as Giger and
Dali? Are they equally valid, and who should assign value, and for
what?
G.
--
'i never think at all when i write/nobody can do two things at the
same time/ and do them both well' - Don Marquis
+Life is too short to emoticon+
(Kick out the kisses to reply by email)
Graham Higgins
> The pair of you seem to be suggesting that I hate *all* modern
> art. Not the case, as I think I said. There are large amounts
> of modern art which I do like; Mondrian, Picasso, Hepworth,
> Lichtenstein, Rothko, etc, to give some examples. My point is
> that Meaning should not come at the expense of Beauty, as it
> almost certainly does in the work of Damain Hirst, for example.
> Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I have seen large
> amounts his work and I have seen nothing I find in the least
> attractive. I particularly dislike this phase of art whereby a
> budding young artist slaps any old crap (in the case of this
> years Turner Prize Winner, that can be taken literally!) onto a
> canvas, say that it is deeply symbolic and then walk to the bank
> to cash his cheque.
*I like the sound of this. I have any amount of old crap, and
the walking away to cash the cheque bit sounds like a real winner. Right
up my street. It's what happens in between I didn't quite get.
I think in Damien Hirst ,and in Jeff Koons before him (and in
the increasing scale of Christo's wrapping-'actions') you have art which
moves the focus back on itself, on exactly what happens when you place
an object or idea before the public. The central gestures are pretty
much empty or banal, but require significant specialist skills to
enact,which the artist *directs*. The Artist is then said to be 'very
much concerned with practice and procedure', and as with Christo, you
can buy documentation of the p&p to take home with you and frame.
The art we tend to hear about in the nineties, however varied it
appears, is itself a small subset of all the art being made in the
world. Increasingly, there is art which resembles loony advertising
campaigns - instantly recogniseable, quickly described, and that's what
naturally gets published.
With 'Sensation' fresh in my mind at present, and I liked a lot
of it a lot, it occurred to me that if you were making the Batman movie
to really turn heads, this was what a very intelligent set-designer
would have built for Bruce Wayne, sponsor, to be inspecting before the
official opening.
I'd thought before I went that it was some kind of Best Brit
PopArt Album in the World Ever 2, but no, it's a selection of the
Charles Saatchi collection. What's likely to tickle his sensibilities?
Stuff that looks like advertising, promoted as, and like, rock'n'roll -
comes with a warning sticker that if your bourgeois sensibilities are
artraged, it's just Art doing its thang, baby.
All the artists mentioned in this list above were going at very
different threads in a long dialogue about where the focus of the
spectator could (indeed ideologues would even use 'should') be placed:
on the painting-as-object, or painting-as-representation... and thence
what was *legitimate* subject matter, and so on...
But if you're a young artist in the nineties, that dialogue is
now settled into orthodoxy.
You don't want to go getting messy with paint to make a point,
you want to make famous stuff with the same kind of budget you'd get in
advertising, and a lot of the exhibits did look like props for ads or cd
covers. (which is actually why Chris Ofili's pachyderm-poo paintings
look quite old-fashioned. I guess they would make more sense to me if I
heard him talking about it, but the poo is rather a stumbling-block).
I recently went to an exhibition of 500 years of drawing -
Raphael to Rauschenberg. We processed through sectioned spaces where
representatives of each century were displayed (*Lovely* Seurat sketches
in graphite, which looked like corners of fragments of faded
photographs), and I have to admit, as we rounded the last bend I thought
'oh come on, guys, we;ve had *four centuries* to get ready for this!'.
The twentieth century stuff was, you know, *interesting*(makes
bunny-ears with fingers), but... ominously, perhaps... you felt the
artists only just had time to scribble these brief notes before they
bailed out.
Maybe the modern art which hooks into advertising, MTV,fashion,
image and marketing, as previous generations hooked into the Gospels, or
Optical Science, or Psychology, really will represent something about us
here now. Maybe in coming decades They'll have decided what they mean
when they say they've 'got it, already' about Damien Hirst and Rachel
Whiteread, and that. We'll be notified in the Sundays.
(Tom Wolfe's 'The Painted Word' is brief and funny about the history of
mod. art)
> Take also the work of Dali, they are deeply surreal
> and symbolic, I daresay, and yet you cannot help looking at them
> again and again.
Which of the surrealists said that after 1933 Dali couldn't
distinguish his own voice from the squeak of his patent leather shoes? I
think his great achievement was to do something that so closely
resembles art, yet leaves you wondering whether it's not a painted
backdrop for the presentation of that central construct, the character
Dali; Freudian-Catholic psychonaut and Grand Eccentric (these days, like
Zappa, he'd have to have his facial hair registered as a trademark).
Oh blimey. sorry everybody, really didn't intend to go on so...
best, G.
Tamara Rigg
>
> Tamara Rigg <t_r...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> >
> > i assume it was a flemish painting?
> > i could be mistaken but flemish painting is full of symbolism.
> > easiest one to point out is "the marriage of arnolfini" (i think it's
> > how it's called, i called it in hebrew - so i don't know)..
> > but that too is allot of symbolism (never too much), so i won't start
> > here....
> >
> <
<snip ramble>
> I have developed a deep seated cynicism to literary criticism, particularly
> criticism that attempts to find meaning in art (literature, painting or
> whatever), suspecting that symbolism like beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder. I have read a number of learned essays on "Alice in Wonderland".
> There is no disputing that the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgeson[2] was a very
> odd bloke, but to attempt to extract meaning/symbolism from Alice is a
> huge mistake.
>
what i'm talking about is a certain style, that is proven to be full of
symbolism's, the best example is a painting by Jan van Eyck called "The
Arnolfini Marriage". it's symbolism isn't all religious. 2 examples are
the dog (symbolizes loyalty) and the fruit (symbolizes fertility). there
are also religious symbols there (single candle, mirror with life of
jesus in it).
the fact that it has symbolism's in it doesn't say they're necessarily
religious [1].
> Challenge of the day:
> Using only the text of the Bible, demonstrate the absolute correctness of
> your most deeply held belief.
>
> Second challenge of the day:
> Using only the text of the Bible, demonstrate the absolute correctness of
> assertion that I prefer Frosties to Corn Flakes.
>
i don't believe in the bible (i just over studied it) so i can do that,
because i won't believe in it. but i have something to say to you:
if you don't have frosties, but only corn flakes - add sugar!
it really is simple
[1] although, when it's an altar piece or something for the church
normally it is. [2]
[2] the arnolfini marriage on the other hand isn't for the church. it
was created to serve as proof that they where indeed married.
Tamara Rigg
>
> Chris Horry wrote in message ...
> >Tamara Rigg <t_r...@hotmail.com> stated:
>
> <snip the words of two lovely people who seem to be having
> a go at me>
>
> art. Not the case, as I think I said. There are large amounts
> of modern art which I do like; Mondrian, Picasso, Hepworth,
> Lichtenstein, Rothko, etc, to give some examples. My point is
> that Meaning should not come at the expense of Beauty, as it
> almost certainly does in the work of Damain Hirst, for example.
> Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I have seen large
> amounts his work and I have seen nothing I find in the least
> attractive. I particularly dislike this phase of art whereby a
> budding young artist slaps any old crap (in the case of this
> years Turner Prize Winner, that can be taken literally!) onto a
> canvas, say that it is deeply symbolic and then walk to the bank
> to cash his cheque.
>
> Broadway Boogie Woogie, or Picasso's Guernica. These
> paintings can certainly challenge us, but they are also fascinating
> to look at. A dead cow or sheep is not fascinating, it's just
> and symbolic, I daresay, and yet you cannot help looking at them
> again and again.
>
>
>
I understand what you say, and i also have trouble with some modern art
works that i've seen, but i still think that you should give the artists
at least a fair chance.
"the fountain" by Duchamp is a very known piece. i think that it is
beautiful because of the message that it carries. and when it was first
showed to the public, most thought it to be vulgar and downright
disgusting.
I feel the same about dead animals [1], but i try to put aside my
prejudice, and judge the art work for what it is [2].
I was grown in a country that the holocaust was a taboo subject for 20
years after it happened. i grew up after the taboo was removed, but it
has it's impact on me - i got it from my mother, my teachers, and
especially my grandparents. the holocaust is a very difficult issue
here, and about a year ago an artist put up an exhibition that was [3]
about the life of Evva Brown. i went to see the exhibition after a long
time of conflict, because it was about the holocaust. but i did go to
see it, and i did as best as i could to judge it on it's own, without
connecting it to anything else. it was one of the more difficult things
i ever did, but i managed. and i liked the concept of the exhibition.
so i'll stop drifting now and get back to the point:
i think that art should be judged without any prejudices, and that we
shouldn't just claim the art work to be of no value just because it's
against our beliefs and/or hurts our prejudice minds.
[1] i can't help it - i've been vegetarian for too long
[2] wiser and better people tried to define what art is. the best answer
they came by with was "art is what the artist declares to be art"
[3] some patience here - i'm still having problems with this here