Wonderful arch
Abfab40583
house, not my type of art. But Jimmy put a lot of effort in it and it's very
personal. I still don't know what it's all about though but long live the arch.
It's brilliant to see Jimmy so "made up" (as is being constantly repeated on
the show).
lh...@my-deja.com
If you (obviously) wouldn't want it in front of your house, and you
don't know what it's all about, then why do you think it's great?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Abfab40583
>don't know what it's all about, then why do you think it's great?
>
Because Jimmy has put a lot of effort into it and it means a lot to him because
it is obviously very personal. This can't be said of many artistic creations
nowadays.
lh...@my-deja.com
abfab...@aol.com (Abfab40583) wrote:
> >If you (obviously) wouldn't want it in front of your house, and you
> >don't know what it's all about, then why do you think it's great?
> >
>
> Because Jimmy has put a lot of effort into it and it means a lot to
him because
> it is obviously very personal.
OK, good point.
> This can't be said of many artistic creations
> nowadays.
When exactly do you mean by "nowadays"? Do you mean the 90s, the post-
war years, the 20th century? And which artistic creations do you have
in mind?
Christopher W. Davies
>> Because Jimmy has put a lot of effort into it and it means a lot to
>him because
>> it is obviously very personal.
>
>OK, good point.
>
>> This can't be said of many artistic creations
>> nowadays.
>
>When exactly do you mean by "nowadays"? Do you mean the 90s, the post-
>war years, the 20th century? And which artistic creations do you have
>in mind?
How about Tracy Emin's bed? Or anything by Tracy Emin actually!!!! :-)
Christopher W. Davies.
Abfab40583
>
Touche!! I am talking about this conceptual art that is getting all the
attention :) Obviously there are plenty of artists actually creating things but
we don't hear enough about them.
Maybe in 100 years time people won't see hanging a dead cow from a ceiling as a
problem and will consider it quite tame but right now I simply don't see the
whole point of it.
lh...@my-deja.com
I'm not sure that I would put Jimmy's arch and Damien Hurst's sheep in
such different categories - I also don't see why Damien Hurst shouldn't
have "put a lot of effort into it and it means a lot to him because
it is obviously very personal".
Sorry, I'm not making myself very clear - I'm trying to say that it
sounds as if you don't like the look of Jimmy's arch and you don't
understand it but you think it's great, BUT that you don't like the
look of Hurst's sheep and you don't understand it and you think it is
rather dubious.
Personally, whatever I think about either of them, I'm glad that we
live in a society that tolerates so many different artistic visions.
Abfab40583
which in our tolerant society is acceptable I think. I never even mentioned
Damien Hurst's Sheep and I am not saying there is no effort going into his
work.
And I never said I didn't like the look of the arch, I just said I'd rather not
have it in front of my house. I don't fully understand what it's all about
because I have not had a good look at it. I was only expressing my humble
opinion but it seems to be turning rather personal here.
Christopher W. Davies
>>How about Tracy Emin's bed? Or anything by Tracy Emin actually!!!! :-)
>>
>
>Touche!! I am talking about this conceptual art that is getting all the
>attention :) Obviously there are plenty of artists actually creating things
>but
>we don't hear enough about them.
>Maybe in 100 years time people won't see hanging a dead cow from a ceiling as
>a
>problem and will consider it quite tame but right now I simply don't see the
>whole point of it.
And maybe people will become famous for producing works of art instead of works
of bollocks!!! :-)
Christopher W. Davies.
lh...@my-deja.com
I'm sorry, I didn't intend it to sound personal, not at all. I was
merely trying to clarify your views in my mind. Sorry if I offended
you - it's nice to have a little artistic discussion, and it's only a
bit OT since it was Jimmy's arch that inspired it!
Abfab40583
>works
>of bollocks!!! :-)
Um, now that's a thought :))
Abfab40583
>merely trying to clarify your views in my mind. Sorry if I offended
>you - it's nice to have a little artistic discussion, and it's only a
>bit OT since it was Jimmy's arch that inspired it!
>
>
:) Absolutely no offense taken.
Maybe I'll clarify my position about art. When you say that there is maybe not
much difference between Jimmy's "Millenium Arch" and Hirst's "Away From The
Flock" (I think that's how he called it), I disagree. Take an impartial
observer who has not heard of either piece of work. When he sees the Arch, he
will see exactly that: Jimmy has built an arch and added some pictures,
objects, etc. to it, whereas when he sees Hirst's sheep, he will see just that:
a sheep. Hirst said it referred to individuality. In other words, there is a
separation between the object and the subject and the only link between the
work and the artist is what the artist says about the work. In other words, the
meaning, if there is to be one, is only implicit. Don't get me wrong, I am not
saying Hirst has not thought about all this a lot but it is not obvious at all.
He says it's about individuality but he does not elaborate on what
individuality is: he seems completely detached. And this is what bothers me in
conceptual art in general: artists can take other people's work (like bottle
racks), say it's about something and it is called art. No matter what art is
(the jury is still out there) because it is the concept of art that conceptual
artists are trying to question.
Um, I hope I have made myself clear. Feel free to disagree, I actually would
enjoy your input :)
Louisa Hennessy
(Abfab40583) writes:
>Maybe I'll clarify my position about art. When you say that there is maybe
>not
>much difference between Jimmy's "Millenium Arch" and Hirst's "Away From The
>Flock" (I think that's how he called it), I disagree. Take an impartial
>observer who has not heard of either piece of work. When he sees the Arch, he
>will see exactly that: Jimmy has built an arch and added some pictures,
>objects, etc. to it, whereas when he sees Hirst's sheep, he will see just
>that:
>a sheep.
Hi, it's still me lhh6, just posting from a different account. I don't quite
agree about what the impartial observer sees. Yes to Jimmy's arch but Hirst's
sheep is a sheep which has been removed from its normal environment, placed in
a tank and then positioned in an art gallery - it is being signified as "art".
I do realise that many people query the very idea that we see something as a
work of art just because we are told that it is one, and that is a point of
view that I agree with one day, disagree with the next.
>Hirst said it referred to individuality. In other words, there is a
>separation between the object and the subject and the only link between the
>work and the artist is what the artist says about the work. In other words,
>the meaning, if there is to be one, is only implicit.
This separation between object and subject surely applies (from the tiniest
degree in photo-realistic painting to the highest degree in (say) abstract
expressionistic painting) to ALL generally recognised works of art. Otherwise
why not simply have a bowl of fruit rather than a still-life painting of a bowl
of fruit? Aha, I hear you say, but what about Hirst's sheep, that's just a
sheep, (sorry for putting words into your mouth here, really I'm just arguing
with myself) but my point is that it isn't just a sheep because of the way it
is presented to us, with the codes and conventions of the art world all being
an integral part of the way that we perceive the piece.
If we say ok, codes and conventions are just society's wallpaper, they're not
part of the work at all, if we take them away then the work should still stand
as a work of art, so we could get, for example, Emin's bed.
Don't get me wrong, I am
>not
>saying Hirst has not thought about all this a lot but it is not obvious at
>all.
>He says it's about individuality but he does not elaborate on what
>individuality is: he seems completely detached. And this is what bothers me
>in
>conceptual art in general: artists can take other people's work (like bottle
>racks), say it's about something and it is called art. No matter what art is
>(the jury is still out there) because it is the concept of art that
>conceptual
>artists are trying to question.
I shouldn't really talk about concept artists, because I don't know much about
any of them, although I suspect that each one has their own individual
motivations and definitions of art, and that it is us as
viewers/consumers/critics that put them into one big category labelled "concept
artists" rather than any common philosophy that unites them.
I feel very strongly that man as a species is artistic and creative, and that
each individual person has their own creative essence, and if one person takes
(e.g.) bottle racks and says that it's art, then I am prepared to accept that
it is art. My preference might be for something completely different, but that
is just a question of taste, I still accept the initial premise that the bottle
racks are art.
>Um, I hope I have made myself clear. Feel free to disagree, I actually would
>enjoy your input :)
Good, cos I'm afraid you've got it! :-)
--
Louisa Hennessy
Essex, England, Europe
Louisa Hennessy
davi...@aol.comdimspam (Christopher W. Davies) writes:
>>Maybe in 100 years time people won't see hanging a dead cow from a ceiling
>as
>>a
>>problem and will consider it quite tame but right now I simply don't see the
>>whole point of it.
>
>And maybe people will become famous for producing works of art instead of
>works
>of bollocks!!! :-)
You mean BULLOCKS surely....
Abfab40583
>Hi, it's still me lhh6, just posting from a different account. I don't quite
>agree about what the impartial observer sees. Yes to Jimmy's arch but Hirst's
>sheep is a sheep which has been removed from its normal environment, placed
>in
>a tank and then positioned in an art gallery - it is being signified as
>"art".
>I do realise that many people query the very idea that we see something as a
>work of art just because we are told that it is one, and that is a point of
>view that I agree with one day, disagree with the next.
>
I agree with you on this one. I am not questioning the use of the word art
because I certainly can't decide for other people what art is. This is not a
point I am trying to make in expressing my opinion. The problem is that by
presenting a sheep Hirst is making no connection whatsoever between his idea of
individuality or the human condition and the sheep. He simply does not
elaborate and that bothers me.
>This separation between object and subject surely applies (from the tiniest
>degree in photo-realistic painting to the highest degree in (say) abstract
>expressionistic painting) to ALL generally recognised works of art. Otherwise
>why not simply have a bowl of fruit rather than a still-life painting of a
>bowl
>of fruit? Aha, I hear you say, but what about Hirst's sheep, that's just a
>sheep, (sorry for putting words into your mouth here, really I'm just arguing
>with myself) but my point is that it isn't just a sheep because of the way it
>is presented to us, with the codes and conventions of the art world all being
>an integral part of the way that we perceive the piece.
>
Aha, but the way he presents the sheep tells us absolutely nothing about what
his message is all about. In general a work of art can be assessed, evaluated
or whatever by the inherent qualities of the work: the colours, the structure,
the overall composition, the play of light. Conceptual art does not do that
because its philosophy lies in the concept the object represents. This is
absolutely fine if the object expresses in any way the subject of the concept.
But Hirst presents his work in a way that tells us nothing of his evaluation of
individuality, the way we live our lives today, etc. In other words it is far
too easy to make a work which is about something without actually saying what
this something is about.
>If we say ok, codes and conventions are just society's wallpaper, they're not
>part of the work at all, if we take them away then the work should still
>stand
>as a work of art, so we could get, for example, Emin's bed.
>
>I shouldn't really talk about concept artists, because I don't know much
>about
>any of them, although I suspect that each one has their own individual
>motivations and definitions of art, and that it is us as
>viewers/consumers/critics that put them into one big category labelled
>"concept
>artists" rather than any common philosophy that unites them.
>
I don't know much about conceptual art either. I even got the "concept artists"
word wrong (although in my defense I have to say that English is not my mother
tongue). And I said I am not here to define what art is. My impression is that
conceptual art is not what it claims to be. If it is about concepts then it has
to have something pertinent to say about the concepts in question. Otherwise I
can pick up an object, say it's about something and declare it a work of art.
>I feel very strongly that man as a species is artistic and creative, and that
>each individual person has their own creative essence, and if one person
>takes
>(e.g.) bottle racks and says that it's art, then I am prepared to accept that
>it is art. My preference might be for something completely different, but
>that
>is just a question of taste, I still accept the initial premise that the
>bottle
>racks are art.
>
Bottle racks are intrisically art, but we tend to forget that because they are
part of our daily lives: common objects are nowadays utilities or commodities,
nothing more. What I don't like here is that an artisan will actually make the
racks and an artist will expose it as a work of art. This is where I question
concept artists and not the work itself. I think I really need to make this
point clear.
>Good, cos I'm afraid you've got it! :-)
And now again you have mine :))
Best wishes
John Edgar
<abfab...@aol.com> writes
>I think Jimmy's arch is great. Obviously I wouldn't want it in front of my
>house, not my type of art. But Jimmy put a lot of effort in it and it's very
>personal. I still don't know what it's all about though but long live the arch.
>It's brilliant to see Jimmy so "made up" (as is being constantly repeated on
>the show).
Beats me why it always looks so clean - I mean, surely the wind, rain
and frost would have begun to deteriorate some of the pictures and
photos by now. It always looks as good as new.
--
John Edgar
Louisa Hennessy
(Abfab40583) writes:
>The problem is that by
>presenting a sheep Hirst is making no connection whatsoever between his idea
>of
>individuality or the human condition and the sheep. He simply does not
>elaborate and that bothers me.
Yes, I see what you mean.
>Aha, but the way he presents the sheep tells us absolutely nothing about what
>his message is all about. In general a work of art can be assessed, evaluated
>or whatever by the inherent qualities of the work: the colours, the
>structure,
>the overall composition, the play of light. Conceptual art does not do that
>because its philosophy lies in the concept the object represents. This is
>absolutely fine if the object expresses in any way the subject of the
>concept.
>But Hirst presents his work in a way that tells us nothing of his evaluation
>of
>individuality, the way we live our lives today, etc. In other words it is far
>too easy to make a work which is about something without actually saying what
>this something is about.
Imagine if every time we went into a gallery to view (say) Hirst's sheep, we
were given a leaflet explaining the ideas and concepts involved in the piece,
why and how a sheep was chosen to express them, what the finished item
represents etc etc........then soon along would come an artist who wanted to
present his leaflet information in a more artistic way, perhaps by stripping
the language down to its bare essentials, or by removing all words with more
than one possible meaning.....and then the gallery owner decided that she
didn't want to influence the viewer's opinions by displaying the sheep in a
manner that loudly proclaimed "work of art" so she leaves the sheep on the
pavement to come under the random forces of nature and society....tee hee
hee....artistic anarchy!
>I don't know much about conceptual art either. I even got the "concept
>artists"
>word wrong (although in my defense I have to say that English is not my
>mother
>tongue). And I said I am not here to define what art is. My impression is
>that
>conceptual art is not what it claims to be. If it is about concepts then it
>has
>to have something pertinent to say about the concepts in question. Otherwise
>I
>can pick up an object, say it's about something and declare it a work of
>art.
Did you see that programme "Meet the Enemy" (?) with the two traditional
watercolourists living for a week with the two concept artists? Very amusing.
:-)
Abfab40583
>were given a leaflet explaining the ideas and concepts involved in the piece,
>why and how a sheep was chosen to express them, what the finished item
>represents etc etc........then soon along would come an artist who wanted to
>present his leaflet information in a more artistic way, perhaps by stripping
>the language down to its bare essentials, or by removing all words with more
>than one possible meaning.....and then the gallery owner decided that she
>didn't want to influence the viewer's opinions by displaying the sheep in a
>manner that loudly proclaimed "work of art" so she leaves the sheep on the
>pavement to come under the random forces of nature and society....tee hee
>hee....artistic anarchy!
>
:)) Artistic anarchy... I think I'd quite like that.
I know it would defeat the object if you put leaflets explaining what a work of
art is all about. But I would still like the artist to be accountable in some
way, ready to discuss his points.
>Did you see that programme "Meet the Enemy" (?) with the two traditional
>watercolourists living for a week with the two concept artists? Very amusing.
>
>:-)
No I missed that one (and I wasn't very pleased about missing it). I would have
loved to see it. Maybe I would understand conceptual art a little better now...
I read the previews though... :)) It must have been quite entertaining. Did you
see it?
Abfab40583
>and frost would have begun to deteriorate some of the pictures and
>photos by now. It always looks as good as new.
>--
>John Edgar
>
in pretty good shape last night.
Louisa Hennessy
(Abfab40583) writes:
>No I missed that one (and I wasn't very pleased about missing it). I would
>have
>loved to see it. Maybe I would understand conceptual art a little better
>now...
>I read the previews though... :)) It must have been quite entertaining. Did
>you
>see it?
Yes, but you didn't miss any revelations about conceptual art. Both pairs of
artists were about as silly as each other, and either they all spent the entire
week arguing and sulking with each other, or (just as likely) the producer
decided to only show the intolerance and misunderstanding between the couples.
Good fun though.
Abfab40583
>artists were about as silly as each other, and either they all spent the
>entire
>week arguing and sulking with each other, or (just as likely) the producer
>decided to only show the intolerance and misunderstanding between the
>couples.
>Good fun though.
>
>--
Um, just like the rest of the series then. Always great entertainment for the
viewers but not very informative :)
And thanks for the chat: I now see that it's more "lazy concept artists" (yes,
this is debatable as such but I know what I mean) that bother me, rather than
conceptual art itself :))
Tom Hawley
stick
> to the original subject matter!
>
> Not that I'm trying to act as a newsgroup censor you understand, but I
> figure that if we all stick to the task in hand then the fools present
> herein will soon tire and subsequently leave.
Since when did you care about on-topic posts CB?
Louisa Hennessy
(Abfab40583) writes:
It looked in even better nick tonight - someone has definitely replaced the
potatoes since New Year's Eve!