Oh Dear.....
Gareth Kitchener
--
Gareth Kitchener
Bedfordshire, England
http://www.garethkitchener.com
Andrew A
"Gareth Kitchener" <gareth.k...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:58b1iuob4pv9nv3o9...@4ax.com...
> http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12018595,00.html
>
>
...and some of the cans have exploded - wouldn't want to be around for that!
Ange
Steve Brooks
"Andrew A" wrote
> "Gareth Kitchener wrote
> > http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12018595,00.html
> >
> >
>
> ...and some of the cans have exploded - wouldn't want to be around for
that!
Indeed - One can't help wondering what the guy had been eating.
--
SB
Mark Blunden
news:afqc1m$ga76t$1...@ID-66359.news.dfncis.de...
Hey, it's conceptual performance art - you go in and watch the can from a
distance, on the offchance that this will be the day it explodes over dozens
of gullible modern-art lovers. That's gotta be worth the price tag (so long
as they're paying it).
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* You can sing to my cat if you like
Nushae S Fahey
You gotta admire their sense of humor. Buying a can of shit, filled by a
guy who did it to prove modern art lovers will buy anything if it's called
art... Proving him right in the process. Or did they? Did they make it art
by buying it and prove him wrong in the process?
There's no doubt that they will earn back the 22000 they payed for it. So I
wouldn't call it a "waste" (ha ha) of money. I wouldn't call it art though,
not even modern art. I can't help but feel those people at Tate are wildly
groping around trying to get their hands on the most controversial "shit"
(hee hee) they can find. I could see modern artists thinking, hm, let's
"dump" (ho ho) it on Tate.
So if it explodes. Does that become art? "The non-art has destroyed
itself."
But modern art seems to me to be just that. If you have any concept, and
succeed in objectifying it somehow, you have modern art. Like a visual pun,
if you will. It does nothing for me, because I just don't have the feeling
of "wow, I could never do that" that I get when I see "real" art. (Whether
abstract or not.)
That toilet bowl for instance. What the hell is art about putting a toilet
bowl on a pedestal. Is it the "technobabble" you provide with your "piece"
that makes it art? I just loved it when those two Japanese "performance
artists" decided to go and pee in it. To me, that *was* art. A powerful
statement that took me completely by surprise.
Nushae S Fahey
--
Nushae's law: don't ever trust a message in which credentials are quoted
nushae at stack dot nl |\ | (" |"
Anything's good if it's made of chocolate... with hazelnuts. | \| _) |"
phil...@see.signature.uk
<gareth.k...@talk21.com> wrote:
>http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12018595,00.html
Just imagine future archaeologists finding an intact one of those and
speculating on the diet of the late 20th century.......
Philippa <ICK>.
Mark Morrison
<gareth.k...@talk21.com> wrote:
>http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12018595,00.html
Can you smell something, dear ? I think it's coming from the room
where we keep all the art...
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
ShallowG
> Nushae S Fahey wrote...
> be described as 'traditional'? One answer, is that Modern Art can be
> knocked up in a couple of hours, whereas traditional art takes a bit
> longer. MA is consequently much sought after and talked up by art
> agents, because if they talk it up enough they can sell it to fools for
> thousands of pounds, and there is an *endless* supply. If you really
> want to know if something is art or not, ask an average person in the
> street, not an art critic.
>
I wish you'd been in my art class at college - I lost count of the times I
had this argument with my teachers - in the end we agreed to differ:
Art teachers view: Modern Art = conceptual genius, worth its weight in gold.
Traditional Art = What everybody else aims for.
My View: Modern art = one trick pony. Traditional art = doesn't date.
They still passed me, but suggested my talents lay elsewhere!
Snowman
"Mark Myers" <spam...@see.sig> wrote in message
news:MPG.178bb8f2...@news.netforce.net...
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:51:17 +0000 (UTC), Nushae S Fahey wrote...
> be described as 'traditional'? One answer, is that Modern Art can be
> knocked up in a couple of hours, whereas traditional art takes a bit
> longer. MA is consequently much sought after and talked up by art
> agents, because if they talk it up enough they can sell it to fools for
> thousands of pounds, and there is an *endless* supply. If you really
> want to know if something is art or not, ask an average person in the
> street, not an art critic.
>
You have no idea how much I would like an art agent to take the art I make
out of my lunch wrapping seriously. As for the sculptures I can make out of
the remains of a MacDonald's meal? You have to see them to believe them.
They are works of genius! (And I even write a wee bit of bullshit and give
it a name on a bit of the paper bag before I leave). If I could get them
into an art gallery and sell them, I'd be made for life!
Nushae S Fahey
> Indeed. What's the difference between 'Modern Art', and Art that could
> be described as 'traditional'? One answer, is that Modern Art can be
> knocked up in a couple of hours, whereas traditional art takes a bit
You know, that strikes me as a bit oversimplified... The amount of time
and effort required can't be the criterium, can it? Art is only art if it
takes effort? Filling a can of shit *takes* effort. Especially if you've
too few fibres.
But serioously. Where do you draw the line between art and "trick"?
Mondriaan, by your criterium, would not be modern art, yet some of his work
moves me and impresses me. Is that not the essence of art, that it is
deeply personal?
Not the fact that anyone can shit in a can makes it non-art; anyone can
press the shutter on a camera, and I've seen photos that are very much Art.
The fact that the artist *says* it is art. That bugs me. I don't want to be
told something is art. Calling something art can never be the sole reason
something is art.
> thousands of pounds, and there is an *endless* supply. If you really
> want to know if something is art or not, ask an average person in the
> street, not an art critic.
There you have it. If you feel it's art, it is. Simple.
Paul Schofield
news:slrnai8bmc....@dragon.stack.nl...
Of course what really is an art is selling your shit in a can --- for 22
grand no less!
--
Paul Schofield
higgy
news:3d2380bd$1...@news.teranews.com:
>
> "Mark Myers" <spam...@see.sig> wrote in message
> news:MPG.178bb8f2...@news.netforce.net...
>> Indeed. What's the difference between 'Modern Art', and Art that
>> could be described as 'traditional'? One answer, is that Modern Art
>> can be knocked up in a couple of hours, whereas traditional art takes
>> a bit longer. MA is consequently much sought after and talked up by
>> art agents, because if they talk it up enough they can sell it to
>> fools for thousands of pounds, and there is an *endless* supply. If
>> you really want to know if something is art or not, ask an average
>> person in the street, not an art critic.
>>
>
> You have no idea how much I would like an art agent to take the art I
> make out of my lunch wrapping seriously. As for the sculptures I can
> make out of the remains of a MacDonald's meal? You have to see them
> to believe them. They are works of genius! (And I even write a wee
> bit of bullshit and give it a name on a bit of the paper bag before I
> leave). If I could get them into an art gallery and sell them, I'd be
> made for life!
Regurgitate the MacDonald's meal over the sculptures and call it "statement
against capitalism". That might do the trick.
Dave.
Mark Blunden
news:MPG.178bb8f2...@news.netforce.net...
> Indeed. What's the difference between 'Modern Art', and Art that could
> be described as 'traditional'? One answer, is that Modern Art can be
> knocked up in a couple of hours, whereas traditional art takes a bit
> longer. MA is consequently much sought after and talked up by art
> agents, because if they talk it up enough they can sell it to fools for >
thousands of pounds, and there is an *endless* supply. If you really
> want to know if something is art or not, ask an average person in the
> street, not an art critic.
Traditional art requires talent and imagination, and is a reflection of the
artist's soul.
Modern conceptual art requires merely the nerve to call it art, and reflects
nothing but the viewer's preconceptions.
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* That's the kind of woolly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being
eaten
Nushae S Fahey
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:18:07 +0000 (UTC), Nushae S Fahey wrote...
>> You know, that strikes me as a bit oversimplified... The amount of time
>> and effort required can't be the criterium, can it? Art is only art if it
>> takes effort? Filling a can of shit *takes* effort. Especially if you've
>> too few fibres.
;-)
> Still, I think that the effort involved has a bearing. ISTM that if I
> need to learn some skills before I can create something, and the
> creation takes some effort, then there's more of a chance that my deep
> involvement will allow my unconscious mind some control over the art
> that I produce, which *might* make it more interesting. Whereas if I
> muck up my bed and stick it in a gallery, the skills I'm using are not
> so much artistic as media manipulative.
Yes. I agree that skill and craft will allow you to express yourself
better. And for about 95% of artists it is also needed. Some folks seem to
do it without effort though... that doesn't make it less art. IMHO.
It always bugs me that if it seems effortless, it somehow can't be art.
>> But serioously. Where do you draw the line between art and "trick"?
>> Mondriaan, by your criterium, would not be modern art, yet some of his work
>> moves me and impresses me. Is that not the essence of art, that it is
>> deeply personal?
> Well, that's probably the only truly correct criteria, really. Which
> means that there has to be a grey area. But there are some lines that we
> could probably agree on. Could you be moved by a room with a light bulb
> in it (IOW, last year's Turner Prize winner)?
No. I agree with you also that cans of shit, lightbulbs, toilets on
pedestals... Campbell soupcans... are definitely on the other side of the
grey area. That lightbulb is one more example of the "it's art because I
say so" approach.
>> Not the fact that anyone can shit in a can makes it non-art; anyone can
>> press the shutter on a camera, and I've seen photos that are very much Art.
> A photo needs composing, either when the shutter is pressed, or in the
> darkroom. Either way, it's the quality of the composition that makes it
> worth looking at.
Exactly what I meant. There is no composition involved in shitting in a can
(other than deciding whether to fill it directly from a squatting position,
or with a ladle from a premade batch... Which is a practical consideration,
hardly an artistic one) and an extremely minimal amount in putting it on a
pedestal.
>> The fact that the artist *says* it is art. That bugs me. I don't want to be
>> told something is art. Calling something art can never be the sole reason
>> something is art.
> I agree. One shouldn't have to read the artists notes so as to be able
> to appreciate their work.
But that photo example got me thinking. I didn't *really* appreciate Paul
Huf's work (didn't really know it much) until I saw a few interviews. The
background helps. It shouldn't be the sole reason to call it art, though.
That is just too easy.
You know, that could be it. I sometimes wish that I'd have the skills to
make a Night Watch or a Mona Lisa. Everybody does I think. But Rembrandt
used whatever technology was available to him, and would probably have used
a mirror reflex if it were there. I saw a fascinating program about that
some months ago. It turns out many painters used lenses and projections to
help them make more realistic paintings. Their art too was mainly
composition, it turns out...
We appreciate those painters for the beauty of their work, but also for the
enormous amount of skill involved, skill we mortals lack. Discovering they
used "tricks" might lessen this feeling of appreciation, make us feel
cheated. Seeing a can of shit being called art certainly makes you feel
"cheated". So perhaps the line is "if I could do it, it can't be art." At
least for some. After all, what would an artist call art?
> My other bug bear about MA is that mostly, it's subject matter is Art
> itself. Much MA seeks only to redefine the boundaries of Art itself.
Or examine them. In a way, that can of shit does its job by making us try
to point out why it isn't art. It could have been a can of anything, for
that matter. But that it does its job doesn't make it art.
> IMV, Art does much better when it describes us, or our emotions, or
> anything from our experience or our imagination. I can't quite see the
> point of saying that a turd is Art, when the reason for saying so is
> that no-one has said so before.
Actually, the one who made it, if I understood this correctly, specifically
said it *wasn't* art. Shat in a can to prove the pretentious MA people will
call anything art. That's pretty ironic, if you think about it. That's
almost Magritte. Did he ever do a "Ceci n'est pas une peinture"?
Nushae S Fahey
> "Mark Myers" <spam...@see.sig> wrote in message
> news:MPG.178bb8f2...@news.netforce.net...
>
>> Indeed. What's the difference between 'Modern Art', and Art that could
>> be described as 'traditional'? One answer, is that Modern Art can be
>> knocked up in a couple of hours, whereas traditional art takes a bit
>> longer. MA is consequently much sought after and talked up by art
>> agents, because if they talk it up enough they can sell it to fools for >
> thousands of pounds, and there is an *endless* supply. If you really
>> want to know if something is art or not, ask an average person in the
>> street, not an art critic.
>
> Traditional art requires talent and imagination, and is a reflection of the
> artist's soul.
>
> Modern conceptual art requires merely the nerve to call it art, and reflects
> nothing but the viewer's preconceptions.
Good one.
David Brain
mark.blun...@ntlworld.com (Mark Blunden) wrote:
> Traditional art requires talent and imagination, and is a reflection of
> the artist's soul.
>
> Modern conceptual art requires merely the nerve to call it art, and
> reflects nothing but the viewer's preconceptions.
That's possibly the worst glib generalisation I have ever come across in my
life.
Now if you were to add the word "Some" (or even, I will concede, "Most" :-)
in front of both of those sentences, I might be prepared to agree with you,
although I'm still not convinced.
I think it was Irving Berlin who was once asked "Which comes first, the
music or the lyrics?" and he answered "The Money."
Almost all of what we consider to be "Great" art - that found hanging in
galleries and private collections around the world - was mostly commissioned
for a purpose by a client.
A fair amount of "Modern" art was only made after considerable reflection
and consideration by the artist as to the intended effect.
--
David Brain
London, UK
Steve Brooks
"David Brain wrote
> Mark Blunden) wrote:
>
> > Traditional art requires talent and imagination, and is a reflection of
> > the artist's soul.
> >
> > Modern conceptual art requires merely the nerve to call it art, and
> > reflects nothing but the viewer's preconceptions.
>
> That's possibly the worst glib generalisation I have ever come across in
my
> life.
>
> Now if you were to add the word "Some" (or even, I will concede, "Most"
:-)
> in front of both of those sentences, I might be prepared to agree with
you,
> although I'm still not convinced.
>
> I think it was Irving Berlin who was once asked "Which comes first, the
> music or the lyrics?" and he answered "The Money."
>
> Almost all of what we consider to be "Great" art - that found hanging in
> galleries and private collections around the world - was mostly
commissioned
> for a purpose by a client.
> A fair amount of "Modern" art was only made after considerable reflection
> and consideration by the artist as to the intended effect.
Hurrah for Mr Brain!
It's not that easy to say where "modern" art starts - I'm sure art
historians have a very specific definition, but that probably isn't
important here. Someone mentioned Duchamp's "Toilet". Well that takes us
back to 1917. I've seen many objects and pictures produced since then that
had every quality anyone here has mentioned to qualify as works of art.
As for the more conceptual part of 20th C. art.. I think it's important that
we get beyond the idea that the 'art' is just the object. Otherwise no live
performance can ever be art. So Theatre and Opera and Musical Performances
can't be 'art'. But once we've allowed Theatre and Concert into the fold we
should really consider things which stretch the boundaries a little further.
Let me put in a word here for Carl André's infamous bricks - which have a
more formal name that, sadly I can't remember. The object itself may just
be a pile of bricks - But it sent ripples through British society. It made
people who had never consciously given a shit about 'art' sit up and think.
Like it or not it has become part of our culture.
What could be more arty than that?
--
SB
Mark Blunden
news:agct0a$iv42g$1...@ID-109455.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David Brain wrote
> > Mark Blunden) wrote:
> >
> > > Traditional art requires talent and imagination, and is a reflection
of
> > > the artist's soul.
> > >
> > > Modern conceptual art requires merely the nerve to call it art, and
> > > reflects nothing but the viewer's preconceptions.
> >
> > That's possibly the worst glib generalisation I have ever come across in
> my
> > life.
> >
> > Now if you were to add the word "Some" (or even, I will concede, "Most"
> :-)
> > in front of both of those sentences, I might be prepared to agree with
> you,
> > although I'm still not convinced.
> >
> > I think it was Irving Berlin who was once asked "Which comes first, the
> > music or the lyrics?" and he answered "The Money."
> >
> > Almost all of what we consider to be "Great" art - that found hanging in
> > galleries and private collections around the world - was mostly
> commissioned
> > for a purpose by a client.
Which isn't strictly relevant to my statement.
> > A fair amount of "Modern" art was only made after considerable
reflection
> > and consideration by the artist as to the intended effect.
IMO a lamentably small proplortion of it goes on to achieve such an effect.
Oh, I agree that the reaction to such pieces is interesting, but the pieces
themselves are not.
The reason these works generate such levels of emotion at all is because
they are presented to the world as being works of art, when clearly they
aren't. This act devalues real art, and it is this which stirs up passionate
reactions in society. It is not the works themselves which do this, but
their treatment by the establishment. This is why such works are so often
subject to acts of 'desecration' - people see that they devalue real art,
and seek to devalue them in turn as an act of revenge, said act usually
consisting of far more artistic expression than the original work.
All IMO of course.
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* Never cross the streams!
Chris Hatt
>
> Let me put in a word here for Carl André's infamous bricks - which have a
> more formal name that, sadly I can't remember.
"Equivalent VIII"
> The object itself may just
> be a pile of bricks - But it sent ripples through British society. It made
> people who had never consciously given a shit about 'art' sit up and think.
> Like it or not it has become part of our culture.
>
> What could be more arty than that?
>
I think most of the controversy was about the amount that was paid for
"something that any 5 year old could have made".
--
Chris Hatt
USER ERROR: Replace user and press any key to continue...
Chris Hatt
Part of the problem I have with much of "modern art" is that it takes
pre-existing objects (be it some bricks, an unmade bed, a
shark/sheep/cow or a room) and calls it art. The "artist" has done very
little if any work to actually "create" something.
Re desecration. I seem to recall reading somewhere, that the infamous
pile of bricks was not intended to be a static object but was intended
to be re-arranged by onlookers as a dynamic display!
David Brain
(Chris Hatt) wrote:
> Steve Brooks wrote:
> >
> > Let me put in a word here for Carl André's infamous bricks - which have
> > a
> > more formal name that, sadly I can't remember.
>
> "Equivalent VIII"
>
> > The object itself may
> > just
> > be a pile of bricks - But it sent ripples through British society. It
> > made
> > people who had never consciously given a shit about 'art' sit up and
> > think.
> > Like it or not it has become part of our culture.
> >
> > What could be more arty than that?
> >
>
> I think most of the controversy was about the amount that was paid for
> "something that any 5 year old could have made".
>
But the point is that "any 5 year old" didn't make it. And the intentions
behind it *are* deeper than a stack of bricks, particularly the physical
representation of abstract concepts.
It's one of my favourite minimalist pieces. (Speaking as someone who's
currently studying Van Eyck and the early Nederlandish school ;-)
Chris Hatt
But "Joe Public" probably cannot see those intentions and abstract
concepts. All they can see is something that they could have produced
themselves - and that doesn't feel like "real art". "Real Art" is
something you feel you couldn't produce - that it takes a "real artist"
to create.
8)
Mark Morrison
Fat nude women on couches.
David Brain
(Chris Hatt) wrote:
Sadly, that seems to be the case. Although even just ten minutes with a
competent gallery guide does wonders for changing peoples minds - and
challenging their instinctive reactions. (I wonder if serious academic
studies have been done in this area?)
Of course this is a major part of the problem - people find actual physical
objects rather than abstract concepts much easier to see (obviously!), even
if they have a completely mistaken understanding of what the physical object
is meant to represent. For instance, most people can look at a Vermeer and
enjoy it as a pretty picture but their appreciation of the /art/ can only
really be at a shallow level of "that's nice" if they don't understand the
symbolism inherent within it. Not that there's anything wrong with the
shallow level, except that looking at many pieces of conceptual art at a
similar shallow level will lead to little reward.
As a "literate" culture (i.e. one in which the majority of people go to
school where they learn to read), we have lost a huge amount of the
"traditional" visual knowledge required to underatand paintings, stained
glass windows and so on, and tend only to look at their aesthetic values
rather than anything else. Instead this has been replaced by a "modern"
visual knowledge which is largely derived from cinema (and television) which
works in an entirely different way. Thus one of the reasons the
Impressionist painters made such an impression (sorry!) is that they were
among the first to try to step ourside the "traditional" visual knowledge
and to start to create the "modern" one instead.
Or I could just be talking a load of pseudo-crap ;-)
Steve Brooks
"Chris Hatt" wrote
> Steve Brooks wrote:
> >
> > Let me put in a word here for Carl André's infamous bricks - which have
a
> > more formal name that, sadly I can't remember.
>
> "Equivalent VIII"
>
> > The object itself may
just
> > be a pile of bricks - But it sent ripples through British society. It
made
> > people who had never consciously given a shit about 'art' sit up and
think.
> > Like it or not it has become part of our culture.
> >
> > What could be more arty than that?
> >
>
> I think most of the controversy was about the amount that was paid for
> "something that any 5 year old could have made".
My 5 year old certainly couldn't - bricks are heavy you know.
I agree that the money was the big issue at the time - But how many people
now remember how much was paid? And yet we still know about the piece.
Even now it's doing its job - here we are discussing 'what is art?'
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"Chris Hatt wrote
> David Brain wrote:
>snip>
> > > I think most of the controversy was about the amount that was paid for
> > > "something that any 5 year old could have made".
> > >
> > But the point is that "any 5 year old" didn't make it. And the
intentions
> > behind it *are* deeper than a stack of bricks, particularly the physical
> > representation of abstract concepts.
> > It's one of my favourite minimalist pieces. (Speaking as someone who's
> > currently studying Van Eyck and the early Nederlandish school ;-)
>
> But "Joe Public" probably cannot see those intentions and abstract
> concepts. All they can see is something that they could have produced
> themselves - and that doesn't feel like "real art". "Real Art" is
> something you feel you couldn't produce - that it takes a "real artist"
> to create.
It seems to me that that is "Joe Public's" mistake. Sure, anyone (with a
hand and enough physical strength) could make a pile of bricks - That's not
the same as conceiving of them as a work of art. It's a bit like you or me
dismissing any book which contains no words we need to look up with "Pah! I
could have written that!"
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"David Brain" wrote
> (Chris Hatt) wrote:
>
> > But "Joe Public" probably cannot see those intentions and abstract
> > concepts. All they can see is something that they could have produced
> > themselves - and that doesn't feel like "real art". "Real Art" is
> > something you feel you couldn't produce - that it takes a "real artist"
> > to create.
>
> competent gallery guide does wonders for changing peoples minds - and
> challenging their instinctive reactions. (I wonder if serious academic
> studies have been done in this area?)
I couldn't agree more. I'd strongly recommend to everyone a day (or more)
in Tate Modern next time you visit London. I'd be very surprised if you
don't find at last one thing in there that makes your jaw drop.
--
SB
Paul Schofield
You mean like the blue crate with sugar cubes and a thermometer in? That
certainly made more jaw drop - just as well I'd seen Art the day before and
could put it in perspective!
--
Paul Schofield
Steve Brooks
"Paul Schofield" wrote
> "Steve Brooks wrote
> > "David Brain" wrote
> > > (Chris Hatt) wrote:
> > >
> > > > But "Joe Public" probably cannot see those intentions and abstract
> > > > concepts. All they can see is something that they could have
produced
> > > > themselves - and that doesn't feel like "real art". "Real Art" is
> > > > something you feel you couldn't produce - that it takes a "real
> artist"
> > > > to create.
> > >
> > > Sadly, that seems to be the case. Although even just ten minutes with
a
> > > competent gallery guide does wonders for changing peoples minds - and
> > > challenging their instinctive reactions. (I wonder if serious
academic
> > > studies have been done in this area?)
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. I'd strongly recommend to everyone a day (or
more)
> > in Tate Modern next time you visit London. I'd be very surprised if you
> > don't find at last one thing in there that makes your jaw drop.
> >
>
> certainly made more jaw drop - just as well I'd seen Art the day before
and
> could put it in perspective!
I'm not familiar with that piece.
One that particularly sticks in my mind is/was a room full of objects which
looked like some kind of junk shop combined with a DIY work shop.. I was
looking at it thinking "ho hum" when I suddenly realised that everything I
was looking at had been moulded out of Styrofoam and painted. (I'd like to
see any 5 year old do that.)
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"Mark Myers" wrote
> Steve Brooks wrote
> about what art it. That's art with it's head stuck firmly up it's own
> backside. It needs to get out a bit.
What do you want art for?
--
SB
Chris Hatt
This illustrates my point. It looks like a random collection of
pre-made everyday objects ("modern art", 'ho hum') but on closer
inspection (which it risks not actually getting) turns out all to be the
careful work of an "artisan" artist. This piece seems almost like a
"real art" parody of "modern art".
Chris Hatt
No, I think I agree with all you've said. That is why I find the
"Sister Wendy" type programs on TV so interesting - because they fill in
some of those blind spots in my education/cultural knowledge.
Christa Jonkergouw
>This is why such works are so often
>subject to acts of 'desecration' -
Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue comes to mind (it's here in
Amsterdam in the Rijksmuseum). The more controversy when it seemed to
be repaired with a paint roller.
Last saturday I went to the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague. They have a
temporary exposition of Degas and art and paintings from his
compadres. Of course we also went to see some of the work of
Mondriaan. I finally wanted to see 'Victory Boogie Woogie' in real, a
painting we paid many million guilders for out of tax money. For
'something that clearly isn't even finished' ;)
And no, I wasn't very impressed by that one, but on the whole I quite
like De Stijl, especially the Rietveldhouse, the 'threedimensional
Mondriaan' in Amersfoort.
<http://www.artsmia.org/modernism/nintro.html>
<http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Schroder_House.html>
<http://www.gemeentemuseum.com>
--
Christa
Jim Larson
> Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:17:02 +0100 tikte dan wel citeerde Mark Blunden:
>
>>This is why such works are so often
>>subject to acts of 'desecration' -
>
> Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue comes to mind (it's here in
> Amsterdam in the Rijksmuseum). The more controversy when it seemed to
> be repaired with a paint roller.
>
>
> Last saturday I went to the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague. They have a
> temporary exposition of Degas and art and paintings from his
> compadres. Of course we also went to see some of the work of
> Mondriaan. I finally wanted to see 'Victory Boogie Woogie' in real, a
> painting we paid many million guilders for out of tax money. For
> 'something that clearly isn't even finished' ;)
> And no, I wasn't very impressed by that one, but on the whole I quite
> like De Stijl, especially the Rietveldhouse, the 'threedimensional
> Mondriaan' in Amersfoort.
This is not a comment on art, about which I know nothing. I just want to know
if you folks really need *that* many vowels in your words? I mean, can't you
save a few for the rest of us?
--
Jim
Christa Jonkergouw
>This is not a comment on art, about which I know nothing. I just want to know
>if you folks really need *that* many vowels in your words? I mean, can't you
>save a few for the rest of us?
>
lol
I never realised, but yes... we do a lot of double vowels. In almost
every open syllable the vowel is double.
But the ij is actually like your y - one letter. Though is
godslastering (heresy? - no dictionary around) to say so and it will
definitely get me flamed in some local newsgroups.
--
Christa
Steve Brooks
"Chris Hatt" wrote
> Steve Brooks wrote:
[Tate Modern]
> > One that particularly sticks in my mind is/was a room full of objects
which
> > looked like some kind of junk shop combined with a DIY work shop.. I was
> > looking at it thinking "ho hum" when I suddenly realised that everything
I
> > was looking at had been moulded out of Styrofoam and painted. (I'd like
to
> > see any 5 year old do that.)
>
> This illustrates my point. It looks like a random collection of
> pre-made everyday objects ("modern art", 'ho hum') but on closer
> inspection (which it risks not actually getting) turns out all to be the
> careful work of an "artisan" artist. This piece seems almost like a
> "real art" parody of "modern art".
But that's also my point - There's a lot more to "modern art" than most
people seem to realise - and some of it is witty in a way that more
traditional art rarely managed.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"Mark Myers
> IDontHave...@hotmail.com says...
<snip>
> > What do you want art for?
> >
>
> To give me some insight on RL.
Hmm. Which pictures or sculptures do that for you?
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"Jim Larson" wrote
<To Christa>
> This is not a comment on art, about which I know nothing. I just want to
know
> if you folks really need *that* many vowels in your words? I mean, can't
you
> save a few for the rest of us?
Don't worry - They're just using up the surplus vowels that the Welsh don't
need.
--
SB
Mark Morrison
The Mona Lisa.
Christa Jonkergouw
>> This is not a comment on art, about which I know nothing. I just want to know
>> if you folks really need *that* many vowels in your words? I mean, can't you
>> save a few for the rest of us?
>
>Don't worry - They're just using up the surplus vowels that the Welsh don't
>need.
Right. And it's just as ununderstandable and unpronouncable.
--
Christa
Steve Brooks
"Mark Morrison" wrote
>"Steve Brooks" wrote:
> >"Mark Myers
> >> IDontHave...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > What do you want art for?
> >> >
> >>
> >> To give me some insight on RL.
> >
> >Hmm. Which pictures or sculptures do that for you?
>
> The Mona Lisa.
What lessons does it teach?
--
SB
Mark Morrison
Teach ?
You mean art has a point ?
InsAnimal
"Steve Brooks" <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:agkllp$mls4v$2...@ID-109455.news.dfncis.de...
Don't play with matches or you might burn your eyebrows off?
That just because it has "This is a fake" written under the paint in
felt tip pen it doesn't mean it's not great art?
That the the Braxiatel collection is overrated?
That my mate Steve once had an exact double living in Italy?
Cheers,
InsAnimal
--
In the good old days, Moya used to Opal Fruit out of danger.
insa...@hotmail.com
Submit your photos to the uk.media.tv.sf.farscape Rogues Gallery at
http://www25.brinkster.com/insanimal
Steve Brooks
"Mark Myers wrote
> IDontHave...@hotmail.com says...
> inevitable conclusion that what works for one of us may not work
> for the other. The reasons don't matter, it's not as if they're
> rational :) (well I know mine aren't - I probably shouldn't
> assume about yours)
I was just curious. The fact is that I can't think of any art of that type
which tells me much about RL - Unlike theatre or novels (or even TV shows.)
The same applies to music.
--
SB
David Brain
IDontHave...@hotmail.com (Steve Brooks) wrote:
>
> But that's also my point - There's a lot more to "modern art" than most
> people seem to realise - and some of it is witty in a way that more
> traditional art rarely managed.
>
Although again that's largely because we've lost the cultural references to
understand the wit in traditional pictures. Look at Hogarth's "The Rake's
Progress" series for a great example of this. (Yes, I know you said
"rarely" but I think it is more common than that.)
Elaine Palmer
Well, thanks to your site link, I think we've sorted out how to travel
by train on our holiday. However, I think we will have to list our
intended journeys, and the relevant dates, and just hand them in to the
ticket office at the station - there is no way we can pronounce most of
them. This could prove to be a very *interesting* holiday. But yes,
we're really looking forward to it. :-)
Elaine
jayembee
> You gotta admire their sense of humor. Buying a can of shit,
> filled by a guy who did it to prove modern art lovers will
> buy anything if it's called art....
Somewhere in there is a "and then the shit hit the can" pun
trying to get out.
-- jayembee
Mark Blunden
news:agku5e$mss5e$1...@ID-104015.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Steve Brooks" <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agkllp$mls4v$2...@ID-109455.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Mark Morrison" wrote
> > >"Steve Brooks" wrote:
> > > >"Mark Myers
> > > >> IDontHave...@hotmail.com says...
> > > >
> > > ><snip>
> > > >
> > > >> > What do you want art for?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> To give me some insight on RL.
> > > >
> > > >Hmm. Which pictures or sculptures do that for you?
> > >
> > > The Mona Lisa.
> >
> > What lessons does it teach?
>
> Don't play with matches or you might burn your eyebrows off?
> That just because it has "This is a fake" written under the paint in
> felt tip pen it doesn't mean it's not great art?
> That the the Braxiatel collection is overrated?
> That my mate Steve once had an exact double living in Italy?
Hmm, is there any way I can make fun of your Doctor Who references without
appearing equally sad for having recognised them myself?
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* You have selected 'slow and horrible'
Christa Jonkergouw
>
>Well, thanks to your site link, I think we've sorted out how to travel
>by train on our holiday. However, I think we will have to list our
>intended journeys, and the relevant dates, and just hand them in to the
>ticket office at the station - there is no way we can pronounce most of
>them. This could prove to be a very *interesting* holiday. But yes,
>we're really looking forward to it. :-)
Good!
BTW - there's a 'threedayticket', summertour:
| Summer trip (Zomertoer)
| Unlimited three-day travel for two by train anywhere within the
| Netherlands for only € 59.00.
| The Zomertoer ticket is a particularly attractive deal, available only
| between 1 July and 9 September. It allows you three days of train
| travel in Holland over a period of ten consecutive days. Individual or
| two-person tickets are available.
| The deal applies to 2nd class only.
| The Zomertoer Plus option gives you full use of other forms of public
| transport (bus, tram and subway), as well as the train.
The plus costs 13,50 euro extra.
If you want to take things to mail: chr...@newsguy.com
--
Christa
Elaine Palmer
>
<snip>
> If you want to take things to mail:
done. Thanks.
Elaine
InsAnimal
"Mark Blunden" <mark.blun...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:agnnhb$nhhn2$1...@ID-36588.news.dfncis.de...
Waaaaaay too late for that. ;)
Graham Thurlwell
<spam...@see.sig> says...
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:54:45 +0100, Mark Morrison wrote...
> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:33:43 +0100, "Steve Brooks"
> > <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >What could be more arty than that?
> >
> >
>
> Or a woman holding a baby and an orange umbrella ;P)
Fat nude woman holding a baby and an orange umbrella while lying on a couch.
:-Ž
--
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
Jades' FFE Site: http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier First Encounters site on the net
Nushae S Fahey
LoL!
(I didn't get the joke this late, honest, I'm just very busy...)
Nushae S Fahey
--
Nushae's law: don't ever trust a message in which credentials are quoted
nushae at stack dot nl |\ | (" |"
Anything's good if it's made of chocolate... with hazelnuts. | \| _) |"
Nushae S Fahey
> I was just curious. The fact is that I can't think of any art of that type
> which tells me much about RL - Unlike theatre or novels (or even TV shows.)
>
> The same applies to music.
But *should* art tell you about real life? I don't think so.
Nushae S Fahey
> In article <MPG.17964eb82...@news.alt.net>, Mark Myers
><spam...@see.sig> says...
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:54:45 +0100, Mark Morrison wrote...
>> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:33:43 +0100, "Steve Brooks"
>> > <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >What could be more arty than that?
>> >
>> > Fat nude women on couches.
>> >
>>
>> Or a woman holding a baby and an orange umbrella ;P)
>
> Fat nude woman holding a baby and an orange umbrella while lying on a couch.
Nah, I can beat that hands down.
Fat nude baby holding a couch while lying on an orange with an umbrella
in the shape of a woman. (Dali, probably)
Graham Thurlwell
<nus...@dragon.stack.nl> says...
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:09:43 +0000 (UTC), chocolate overdose made Graham Thurlwell scream:
> > In article <MPG.17964eb82...@news.alt.net>, Mark Myers
> ><spam...@see.sig> says...
> >> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:54:45 +0100, Mark Morrison wrote...
> >> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:33:43 +0100, "Steve Brooks"
> >> > <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >What could be more arty than that?
> >> >
> >> > Fat nude women on couches.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Or a woman holding a baby and an orange umbrella ;P)
> >
> > Fat nude woman holding a baby and an orange umbrella while lying on a couch.
> >:-Ş
>
> Nah, I can beat that hands down.
>
> Fat nude baby holding a couch while lying on an orange with an umbrella
> in the shape of a woman. (Dali, probably)
Hmm... I think this is a good time to concede. ;-)