FuckArtCritics.com
Christian Tangoe
headline. It is just a domain, that I use in an event at moment.
However it reflects the wish for a discussion about art-institutions,
museums censored exhibitions, auctionresults, branding of artists,
gallery-pull-offs and the like. Did I forget media stunts adn
conceptual event-making ?
I would like to hear some comments, that is analysis of the
power-structures in modern art.
I guess one will have to agree, that not every painting is the worlds
8th wonder. But is the way art is curated and selected at moment fair
???
How could it be different ?
Is it in some way corrupt, and how can that be pinpointed ???
Examples on "real cheat", any kind of groovy storys on how injustice
takes or has taken place - specially if sex and monyey is involved -
will be warmly welcomed.
Let me contribute with the first one my self: Say, if I don愒 think I
get that great coverage on the searches in auction-sits on the net,
-Or if I惴 not to well-establiched price-wise on the market - here is
the trick:
Put a painting up for sale, and bid it home yourself for a REAL good
price. It only costs 10 pct. of the value, but who cares ? Afterwards
you have PROOF, that this painting has been sold for xxxx dollars.
I惴 courious to read your contributions....
Christian Tangoe
Seagull Manager
"Christian Tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
news:92189330.03053...@posting.google.com...
>
> How could it be different ?
It could be democratic. The arguments that arts grandees make against
democratizing the processes by which public institutions purchase and
commission are similar to the arguments that conservatives used against
democratizing politics during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, and
are equally wrong.
> Is it in some way corrupt, and how can that be pinpointed ???
It is riddled with cronyism.
> Examples on "real cheat", any kind of groovy storys on how injustice
> takes or has taken place - specially if sex and monyey is involved -
> will be warmly welcomed.
"Art Review" used regularly to document instances of conflict of interest
and cronyism in the Arts Councils in Britain, until the proprietors decided
a couple of years ago to change the editor and turn the magazine into a
Hello Magazine for the art world.
They also had an "Artbollocks" column, with a selection of choice quotes
from pretentious artist's statements, reviews, etc.
Those were the days!
I hate "Art Review" now.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>This message is not intented to advertise for the domain in the
>headline. It is just a domain, that I use in an event at moment.
>
>However it reflects the wish for a discussion about art-institutions,
>museums censored exhibitions, auctionresults, branding of artists,
>gallery-pull-offs and the like. Did I forget media stunts adn
>conceptual event-making ?
>
>I would like to hear some comments, that is analysis of the
>power-structures in modern art.
>
>I guess one will have to agree, that not every painting is the worlds
>8th wonder. But is the way art is curated and selected at moment fair
>???
I don't know about the rest of the world but dutch museums get a lot
of public money and this gives the curators a lot of power :
http://www.xs4all.nl/~taede/toonklok/VBB/Victbw.htm
This is "Victory Boogie Woogie". It cost the equivalent of 40 million
U$ in 1998. It's not even finished. I've seen it in person and it's
not even worth 40 dollars. The dutch web page is a complaint about
wasting PUBLIC money this way (to some american "S. Newhouse" who
owned it) while this money could have been spend to dutch artists.
There's no way this painting will pay itself back by luring people
into the museum. It's an outrage that the personal taste of a curator
can command such amounts of public money and spend it at will.
Paul Mesken
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Christian Tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
>news:92189330.03053...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> How could it be different ?
>
>It could be democratic. The arguments that arts grandees make against
>democratizing the processes by which public institutions purchase and
>commission are similar to the arguments that conservatives used against
>democratizing politics during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, and
>are equally wrong.
In what way democratic? Even though the idea of voting which paintings
will be purchased (from a selection) sounds nice, it's practically
quite hard to do, especially here in the Netherlands where each public
building (schools, museums, hospitals, railway stations, town halls,
etc.) need to spend a percentage of their budget to art.
Nevertheless, some form of democracy should be introduced since we're
talking about public money here. Perhaps the people who purchase it
should be elected.
Chris
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:242gdvkgdti89n3us...@4ax.com...
> I don't know about the rest of the world but dutch museums get a lot
> of public money and this gives the curators a lot of power :
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~taede/toonklok/VBB/Victbw.htm
>
> This is "Victory Boogie Woogie". It cost the equivalent of 40 million
> U$ in 1998. It's not even finished. I've seen it in person and it's
> not even worth 40 dollars. The dutch web page is a complaint about
> wasting PUBLIC money this way (to some american "S. Newhouse" who
> owned it) while this money could have been spend to dutch artists.
> There's no way this painting will pay itself back by luring people
> into the museum. It's an outrage that the personal taste of a curator
> can command such amounts of public money and spend it at will.
>
Hey Mondriaan was Dutch - you think you guys can get away forever on
Rembrandt, Hals. Vermeer, et al??? Remember, you're the guys that started us
on the road to ruin with van Gogh (though he is still one of my favourites).
As for the cost, look at it this way - rich people pay the bulk of the taxes
in most countries, let them have a few playthings to keep them happy (and
paying). But as long as you have government funded arts, you'll have insider
and outsiders, with money flowing based more on politics than anything else.
The only way to beat it is to go out and buy art that you like, and create
art the way you want it created. If it "speaks" to anyone else, you'll have
buyers, and if not, well then, at least you'll have the pleasure of creating
it.
But I think that those who want to overturn the art establishment need to
look at how it was done effectively in the past - for example, by the
Impressionists - rather than just railing against it.
Cheers;
Chris
Paul Mesken
>Hey Mondriaan was Dutch
I wanted to keep that quiet! ;-)
>But I think that those who want to overturn the art establishment need to
>look at how it was done effectively in the past - for example, by the
>Impressionists - rather than just railing against it.
Yes, you're right. No matter how much Deli, Seagull, Stengl and I post
here, it won't be noticed in the slightest by the art establishment.
Perhaps an art offensive would be better (Armee Groupe Center,
operation "No Skill, No Art" ;-) Focusing on the "emperor has no
clothes" concept. The work of skilled artists doesn't need "artspeak"
to be appreciated. The skill alone should put the celebrated rubbish
in the shadow. I believe the tide is turning again.
The first thing however that needs to be done is to re-define Art
(from "everything is art") to a definition that incorporates skill
again. Waddayaknow? Jack was right, I *am* a Deli Desciple ;-)
Seagull Manager
>
> Even though the idea of voting... sounds nice, it's practically
> quite hard to do
That's one of the standard arguments against democracy, and it is usually
not true.
> especially here in the Netherlands where each public
> building (schools, museums, hospitals, railway stations, town halls,
> etc.) need to spend a percentage of their budget to art.
Let them have open competitions for commissions. Let them then present the
submitted sketches, slides, maquettes, etc., to the public - by exhibiting
them, or by putting them up in a website, or a booklet for a couple of
months - and allow all the museum visitors, hospital patients, railway
travellers, etc., to vote on their preference. Buy the pieces that get the
most votes.
> Perhaps the people who purchase it
> should be elected.
No. Absolutely not. That would represent barely any improvement at all. How
would those who elect the purchasing committee be able to predict how that
committee might make its selections?
Oliver Gili
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bb8ilr$jqj$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Christian Tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
> news:92189330.03053...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > How could it be different ?
>
> It could be democratic. The arguments that arts grandees make against
> democratizing the processes by which public institutions purchase and
> commission are similar to the arguments that conservatives used against
> democratizing politics during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, and
> are equally wrong.
actually I'd agree with you here....
The current conceptual cabal which rules the art world creates a system of
criteria as confining and redudant as the salon system did in the the late
19th centuary.
Oliver
Oliver Gili
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 23:27:42 -0300, "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
>
> >Hey Mondriaan was Dutch
>
> I wanted to keep that quiet! ;-)
>
> >But I think that those who want to overturn the art establishment need to
> >look at how it was done effectively in the past - for example, by the
> >Impressionists - rather than just railing against it.
>
> Yes, you're right. No matter how much Deli, Seagull, Stengl and I post
> here, it won't be noticed in the slightest by the art establishment.
> Perhaps an art offensive would be better (Armee Groupe Center,
> operation "No Skill, No Art" ;-) Focusing on the "emperor has no
> clothes" concept. The work of skilled artists doesn't need "artspeak"
> to be appreciated. The skill alone should put the celebrated rubbish
> in the shadow. I believe the tide is turning again.
Save me from another reactionary 'revolution' What is needed is something
that takes on board the art battles of the 20th centuary and moves beyond
them, rather than retreating to some mythical golden age (golden ages tend
not to be that golden if examined closesly, allthough I do love Vermeer's
work and have visited Delft because of it). I think perhaps it is time to
move from concept to aesthetics, as the yardstick to which art is measured
against. But then again thats because thats the value I look for in art
(allthough I do like Duchamp, and Beuyer)... conceptually based art needs a
legion of critics, just as critics needs a legion of conceptual art... so
its a rather self-serving and self-perpetuating system which I can't see
changing by itself.
>
> The first thing however that needs to be done is to re-define Art
> (from "everything is art") to a definition that incorporates skill
> again. Waddayaknow? Jack was right, I *am* a Deli Desciple ;-)
>
That unfortunately is impossible.... the genie is out of the box. and
its not 'everything is art' is 'anything can be art' there is an important
distinction there... 'no skill, no art' is merely the flip side of 'no
concept no art' both are wrong..
What I'm astounded by, is why aren't more artists responding to the societal
aesthetic changes brought about by things like 'Grand Theft Auto III' and
'Half-Life II', and the mainstreaming of psychedelic states of seeing (like
overbright colours), the saccharin and superficial world of corporate
propaganda/advertising has, why not fine art?
Oliver.
Paul Mesken
I think that's a pretty good idea. It's the yardstick I use anyway :-)
I believe the concept should only be used to add to the aesthetic
experience, deepening it.
>But then again thats because thats the value I look for in art
>(allthough I do like Duchamp, and Beuyer)... conceptually based art needs a
>legion of critics, just as critics needs a legion of conceptual art... so
>its a rather self-serving and self-perpetuating system which I can't see
>changing by itself.
I fear you're right about that. It cannot be changed from the outside
but at least we could attempt to make it less important.
>> The first thing however that needs to be done is to re-define Art
>> (from "everything is art") to a definition that incorporates skill
>> again. Waddayaknow? Jack was right, I *am* a Deli Desciple ;-)
>
>That unfortunately is impossible.... the genie is out of the box. and
>its not 'everything is art' is 'anything can be art' there is an important
>distinction there... 'no skill, no art' is merely the flip side of 'no
>concept no art' both are wrong..
>
>What I'm astounded by, is why aren't more artists responding to the societal
>aesthetic changes brought about by things like 'Grand Theft Auto III' and
>'Half-Life II', and the mainstreaming of psychedelic states of seeing (like
>overbright colours), the saccharin and superficial world of corporate
>propaganda/advertising has, why not fine art?
It seems there's not that much happening in the art world (concerning
paintings and stuff). In my home town (Harlingen) there are quite a
lot of galleries but most stuff is just CoBrA ripp offs, it has
written "Corneille" all over it. There doesn't seem to be a connection
with what is happening in the rest of the world (ofcourse a lot of
this art is mostly meant to be decorative so it isn't concerned with
events). The movies is a completely different story, this is the
medium that holds up a mirror to society.
Paul Mesken
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:iq3gdvklh9ou9viik...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Even though the idea of voting... sounds nice, it's practically
>> quite hard to do
>
>That's one of the standard arguments against democracy, and it is usually
>not true.
>
>> especially here in the Netherlands where each public
>> building (schools, museums, hospitals, railway stations, town halls,
>> etc.) need to spend a percentage of their budget to art.
>
>Let them have open competitions for commissions. Let them then present the
>submitted sketches, slides, maquettes, etc., to the public - by exhibiting
>them, or by putting them up in a website, or a booklet for a couple of
>months - and allow all the museum visitors, hospital patients, railway
>travellers, etc., to vote on their preference. Buy the pieces that get the
>most votes.
Hm, it's an interesting idea and I think _part_ of the purchases
could be done this way but let's also not forget that there is art
that is highly appreciated by a small band of people but refused by
the majority (because it is offending in some way for example, let's
say it contains nudity, a point brought up by Slick).
We shouldn't only get stuff that is tolerated by the majority (kind of
McDonald art, few hate it but it ain't particularly good).
Deli had the idea of having two different curators in a museum. It's
easy implemented and I think it's a good idea.
>> Perhaps the people who purchase it
>> should be elected.
>
>No. Absolutely not. That would represent barely any improvement at all. How
>would those who elect the purchasing committee be able to predict how that
>committee might make its selections?
LOL! This is the way our governments are elected!
Seagull Manager
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:ZjUBa.6595$ik4.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Hey Mondriaan was Dutch
But the guy they bought the painting from wasn't. And Mondriaan isn't all
that popular; if it weren't for public museums competing with public money
to buy his paintings, his prices would probably collapse.
> As for the cost, look at it this way - rich people pay the bulk of the
taxes
> in most countries,
They don't. The middle classes do.
> But as long as you have government funded arts, you'll have insider
> and outsiders, with money flowing based more on politics than anything
else.
Politicians tend to stay out of it. Money flows are mainly directed by
cronyism.
> But I think that those who want to overturn the art establishment need to
> look at how it was done effectively in the past - for example, by the
> Impressionists - rather than just railing against it.
Did the Impressionists overturn the establishment? I thought they simply
*joined* it.
Seagull Manager
>
> ... there is art
> that is highly appreciated by a small band of people but refused by
> the majority (because it is offending in some way for example, let's
> say it contains nudity, a point brought up by Slick).
Why should the state spend its money putting such art up in public places?
To "improve" the taste of the masses? Surely, that would amount to
unwarranted presumption. Let the minority who like such art buy it for
themselves.
> >No. Absolutely not. That would represent barely any improvement at all.
How
> >would those who elect the purchasing committee be able to predict how
that
> >committee might make its selections?
>
> LOL! This is the way our governments are elected!
I have my doubts about representative democracy in politics as well, but at
least political parties do tend to make commitments that can be relied upon
to some extent. What equivalent commitments would the elected curators make?
"We will only buy Pop art"? "We will only buy Abstract Expressionism"? Such
commitments would not be enough to ensure that what they bought actually
reflected popular preferences.
Christian Tangoe
May I please ask you not to get lost in etither the definition on Art
(as I do myself by the end of this post) or personal mud-trhowing in
this thread. PLEASE !
Now first of all thankss to Seagull, who in the very first answer to
my posting initiated the idea that "Art could be democratic".
This is a very strong statement, and I惴 really trhilled and
thankfull, that it was put forward.
FIRST: An immense number of people will have to admit, that art today
is NOT GOVERNED BY DEMOCRACY.
SECONDLY: It is very hard these days to defend that any part of the
society is NOT governed by democracy.
Anybody opposed to the "DEMOCRACY IN ART MOVEMENT" - which I惴 hereby
suggesting and vision to become a world movement - NO I惴 not kidding
- will have a hard time, at least in the western world.
Now, just like some postings here, I initaitally had my first doubts
too. But really, there are no excuses.
DEMOCRACY means much more than just "voting about what art-piece
should be bought".
It involves a great number of processes like a constitution, a free
(but citical) press, freedom of speach, openness in decisive and
controlling institutions, parting of the power and much more.
It would be very nice to have some constructive analysis of these
democratic pillars as applied to art.
IF I ANYWAY SHOULD MAKE THE SILLY MOVE, to jump into the "ART" thing,
I惻l say this:
If there should be a thing like a "constitution" for democratic
art-world, one of the paragraphs should go like this:
"Anybody is privileged to suggest - and acutally label - any object,
happening phenomena or what ever "ART". This right is exclusive, and
cannot be contradicted per definition. HOWEVER the RELEVANCE and the
aestecics, the moral implications, ethics, skill in execution,
intention and so on may be debated to any extend.
No group or Institution shall alter this basic principle, and any
group or Institution that promotes a certain definition on "ART"
and/or do not respect this privilledge is considered undemocratic"
Please comment. Please expand or clarify.
Please notice, that THIS IS NOT A "DEFINITION". THIS IS NOT to explain
"WHAT ART IS". This is like the "freedom of speech"-amendment, it
democrates or liberalize the right to "LABEL" something "ART".
So in reality this doesnt say much and still it says everything: It
says, that nobody can "MONOPOLIZE" the expression "ART". This is not
the same as "Everything can be art" or that quality-demands can not be
debated.
This "constitutional paragraph" is actually a reversed gurantee not to
be runned down by conseptual establishment: What establishment does
is, that it will not accept anything else to be art apart from what it
"likes" or defines itself.
To say "This is Art" - which by the way often isn愒 said but elsehow
postulated in nonverbal form - doesn愒 blueprint anything. Remebember
a qustion like "IS this really art" will still be appropriate, as will
a question like "why do you consider this to be art ?".
You could say that this is like a "artisitc" version of the freedom of
religion. Now if I say that my God is a pile of old porn-magazines in
my corner that I worship every day, you are not supposed to be
blasfemish about that. You still might want to wonder what kind of a
sick guy i would be thoug...
Now I扉e written far too much, but I felt that it was importwant to
really elaborate on this, thus minimizing the possiblities of
misunderstanding.
Christian Tangoe
(selfelected chairman of the Universal Democratic Art Movement UDAM
:-)
Chris
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bbak6p$oav$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> The current conceptual cabal which rules the art world creates a system of
> criteria as confining and redudant as the salon system did in the the late
> 19th centuary.
>
Hardly true Oliver. 19th Century French artists who couldn't get into the
salon were literally faced with starvation; during most of the period when
the Salon dominated the 19th centry art market there was no alternatie sytem
by which a competent artist could put his work towards a large buying
public. There are market oportunities for art everywhere you look - from
small to large galleries, to eBay, to Web marketing or flea markets. The
whole range is open to you; why bother worrying about some non-existent
"cabal"? But if you now can't find people to support your work, then I would
say you should look to the choices you make, rather than finding fault with
others, particularly when vaguely described as "the system".
One of the great benefits of modern art is that when it collapsed as a
credible idea, it took with it the notion that art should be dominated by
experts. Most people have no qualms these days about letting their own taste
in art dictate their choices - often to the mortification of critics,
academics and "professionals". And in a world where artists claim
subjectivity and individual expression as a fundamental aspect of their
aesthetic, that's the way it should be.
Cheers;
Chris
In another post you rote something about needing a new aesthetic (I think it
was you)
> Oliver
>
>
Seagull Manager
>
> "Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> news:r37gdv4iehosmsm82...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 30 May 2003 23:27:42 -0300, "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
> >
> > The first thing however that needs to be done is to re-define Art
> > (from "everything is art") to a definition that incorporates skill
> > again. Waddayaknow? Jack was right, I *am* a Deli Desciple ;-)
> >
>
> That unfortunately is impossible.... the genie is out of the box. and
> its not 'everything is art' is 'anything can be art' there is an important
> distinction there...
If the communism genie was able to climb back in the box, I reckon the
dadaism one can, too.
> 'no skill, no art' is merely the flip side of 'no
> concept no art' both are wrong..
I think both are right.
> What I'm astounded by, is why aren't more artists responding to the
societal
> aesthetic changes brought about by things like 'Grand Theft Auto III' and
> 'Half-Life II', and the mainstreaming of psychedelic states of seeing
(like
> overbright colours), the saccharin and superficial world of corporate
> propaganda/advertising has, why not fine art?
One treads a tightrope of snobbery if one injects reference to video games
into one's art. Very dangerous. Video games are probably the dominant art
form of the future, anyway.
Oliver Gili
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> Hardly true Oliver. 19th Century French artists who couldn't get into the
> salon were literally faced with starvation; during most of the period when
> the Salon dominated the 19th centry art market there was no alternatie
sytem
> by which a competent artist could put his work towards a large buying
> public. There are market oportunities for art everywhere you look - from
> small to large galleries, to eBay, to Web marketing or flea markets. The
> whole range is open to you; why bother worrying about some non-existent
> "cabal"? But if you now can't find people to support your work, then I
would
> say you should look to the choices you make, rather than finding fault
with
> others, particularly when vaguely described as "the system".
>
Yes, I think you have a point.... I manage to get exhibitions (relatively
successful, even taking into account the odd theft of my work).allthough
there are spaces which are denied to me by me not being 'the right sort of
artist',
I think your right, about railing against the establishment, its a waste of
time, which would be far more usefully spent painting, or hustling. I for
one cannot take the attitude that there isn't the market for peoples work
because of the style of work they do...as I've seen with my uncle who paints
in a very 'classical' pre modernist way, hes got gallery representation, and
his work regularly sells from between 8 and 20,000 pounds a painting. .I
guess its about if one want to be 'hip' and famous... but I think thats a
fool's desire.
> One of the great benefits of modern art is that when it collapsed as a
> credible idea, it took with it the notion that art should be dominated by
> experts. Most people have no qualms these days about letting their own
taste
> in art dictate their choices - often to the mortification of critics,
> academics and "professionals". And in a world where artists claim
> subjectivity and individual expression as a fundamental aspect of their
> aesthetic, that's the way it should be.
The 'experts' still like to try and inforce their grip on things though. I'm
sure they'd like to have the seeming complete control that the salon system
had
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> In another post you rote something about needing a new aesthetic (I think
it
> was you)
>
yes, was me...
Oliver
Oliver Gili
>
> "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bbalq7$jos$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> > news:r37gdv4iehosmsm82...@4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 30 May 2003 23:27:42 -0300, "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
> > >
> > > The first thing however that needs to be done is to re-define Art
> > > (from "everything is art") to a definition that incorporates skill
> > > again. Waddayaknow? Jack was right, I *am* a Deli Desciple ;-)
> > >
> >
> > That unfortunately is impossible.... the genie is out of the box.
and
> > its not 'everything is art' is 'anything can be art' there is an
important
> > distinction there...
>
> If the communism genie was able to climb back in the box, I reckon the
> dadaism one can, too.
Don't confuse the still birth of Stalinism with communism. I would say its
still out of the box as the brave worker owned co-operatives in Argentina
show... allthough the Argentinian authorities are desperately trying to
force 'em back in the box
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2005/stories/20030314000506200.htm. Dada is
almost 100 years ago..... get over it. There is plenty of space for other
types of artwork.
>
> > 'no skill, no art' is merely the flip side of 'no
> > concept no art' both are wrong..
>
> I think both are right.
>
But each of those statements is wrong on its own.
>
> One treads a tightrope of snobbery if one injects reference to video games
> into one's art. Very dangerous. Video games are probably the dominant art
> form of the future, anyway.
Hahaha, and don't I know it.... even though video games are starting to
almost hit their Battleship Potemkin stage.... I think they are to the 21st
centuary what film was to the 20ths...
Oliver
Seagull Manager
>
>
> Don't confuse the still birth of Stalinism with communism.
Okay, "Stalinism got back in its box", I don't care.
> Dada is almost 100 years ago..... get over it.
I got over it long ago; I only wish Tracy Emin and Charles Saatchi would get
over it.
> There is plenty of space for other types of artwork.
Sure, there is, outside the establishment. The difference between now and
the 19th century is that the private market for art is much larger now than
it was then. Still, I feel quite entitled to complain that the establishment
promotes neo-neo-neo-Dada, which is very much a minority taste, to the very
near exclusion of all else. Speaking as a consumer, when I go to an art
museum, I want to see art, preferrably art that I find impressive, rather
than crushingly boring!
> > > 'no skill, no art' is merely the flip side of 'no
> > > concept no art' both are wrong..
> >
> > I think both are right.
> >
> But each of those statements is wrong on its own.
I think they're both right on their own. Without the application of skill,
you cannot make art, still less good art, and without concepts, you cannot
make art, still less good art. EACH statement is true.
Oliver Gili
>
> "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bbhs38$hlg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Don't confuse the still birth of Stalinism with communism.
>
> Okay, "Stalinism got back in its box", I don't care.
>
> > Dada is almost 100 years ago..... get over it.
>
> I got over it long ago; I only wish Tracy Emin and Charles Saatchi would
get
> over it.
>
The Saatchi thing was about marketing, about relying upon the Daily Mail (a
notoriously ignorant right wing tabloid that thinks its a broadsheet for
those outside of the UK) contingent to rale against it... infact I don't
think it would have got quite so far if people hadn't had raled against it.
The YBA thing has faided, and the prices for their pieces are dropping.
> > There is plenty of space for other types of artwork.
>
> Sure, there is, outside the establishment. The difference between now and
> the 19th century is that the private market for art is much larger now
than
> it was then. Still, I feel quite entitled to complain that the
establishment
> promotes neo-neo-neo-Dada, which is very much a minority taste, to the
very
> near exclusion of all else. Speaking as a consumer, when I go to an art
> museum, I want to see art, preferrably art that I find impressive, rather
> than crushingly boring!
You presumably were bored by the amazing Delft school show couple of years
ago, or perhaps last years Mattise vs Picasso at the Tate Modern, The Klee
show at the Hayworth... the Aztecs expo.... etc etc etc... In fact when was
the last time you visited Tate Britian, Dulwich picture gallery, Royal
Academy, the National etc etc.
>
>
> > > > 'no skill, no art' is merely the flip side of 'no
> > > > concept no art' both are wrong..
> > >
> > > I think both are right.
> > >
> > But each of those statements is wrong on its own.
>
> I think they're both right on their own. Without the application of skill,
> you cannot make art, still less good art, and without concepts, you cannot
> make art, still less good art. EACH statement is true.
>
yes this is true of course, but both those statements have very clearly
defined value-laden meanings of 'concept' and 'skill' and this is what I'm
referring to as wrong...
Oliver
Christian Tangoe
> Sure, there is, outside the establishment. The difference between now and
> the 19th century is that the private market for art is much larger now than
> it was then. Still, I feel quite entitled to complain that the establishment
> promotes neo-neo-neo-Dada, which is very much a minority taste, to the very
> near exclusion of all else.
I don´t get you. I´m pretty sure, that the establichemnt DOESNOT
promote one thing over anotother. They are not THAT stupid. They
promote a wider range of artists over other artists, which is a
compleetely different thing.
However you might find, that "the establishments taste" that is also
the prevalent taste" is sligthly more intellecutal, dada or
intellectual that the usual mass-appeal.
But in the end say 90 pct. of all art is bought by the few (10?)
percent of the population that owns the 90 pct. of the values.
But maybe you mean something elese by dada than I do. At leas I can
promise you that Rauschenberg doesnt have a broad appeal here in
Denmark, where as more decorative stuff is easy selling.
But if I get you right, we could agree, that the foucs by the
establihment is on som wierd, intellectual fish-in-a-blender kind of
art,thus leaving the public tio theír own frustration like: I´dont get
it, this can´t be art, nobody nows what art is, I make up what i like,
and thats got to be art...
Christian
Seagull Manager
>
> You presumably were bored by the amazing Delft school show couple of years
> ago, or perhaps last years Mattise vs Picasso at the Tate Modern, The Klee
> show at the Hayworth... the Aztecs expo.... etc etc etc... In fact when
was
> the last time you visited Tate Britian, Dulwich picture gallery, Royal
> Academy, the National etc etc.
This is all dead people's art. Great to see, for sure, but what art by
living artists is being encouraged by the establishment? Apart from the BP
Portrait award, nothing but neo-neo-neo-tired-clapped-out Dada. I'd like to
see some real and good art being produced today turning up in public shows
and being talked about in the press.
And I go to most of these shows (and others you haven't mentioned, and art
fairs, and galleries, and the V&A and the Brit Museum and the Courtauld...).
> > I think they're both right on their own. Without the application of
skill,
> > you cannot make art, still less good art, and without concepts, you
cannot
> > make art, still less good art. EACH statement is true.
> >
> yes this is true of course, but both those statements have very clearly
> defined value-laden meanings of 'concept' and 'skill' and this is what I'm
> referring to as wrong...
I don't know what those meanings are, other than what seems obvious to me.
Perhaps I'm missing something?
Seagull Manager
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote
in message news:<bbi959$f9h$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>
> > Sure, there is, outside the establishment. The difference between now
and
> > the 19th century is that the private market for art is much larger now
than
> > it was then. Still, I feel quite entitled to complain that the
establishment
> > promotes neo-neo-neo-Dada, which is very much a minority taste, to the
very
> > near exclusion of all else.
>
> I don´t get you. I´m pretty sure, that the establichemnt DOESNOT
> promote one thing over anotother. They are not THAT stupid. They
> promote a wider range of artists over other artists, which is a
> compleetely different thing.
Maybe the establishment in Denmark collects and promotes a wide range of
art, reflecting the range that is produced, but the establishment in Britain
certainly does not. What is shown in govt. funded galleries represents a
very narrow range of what is sold on the market nationwide. Basically, the
institutional sector is obsessed exclusively with conceptualism. (One
complaint used to be that no painter had won the Turner prize for 15 years.
So they gave it to Gary Hume - a guy who makes paintings using stencils and
household gloss).
> However you might find, that "the establishments taste" that is also
> the prevalent taste" is sligthly more intellecutal, dada or
> intellectual that the usual mass-appeal.
Not here. Establishment taste is completely alien to the prevalent taste.
> But if I get you right, we could agree, that the foucs by the
> establihment is on som wierd, intellectual fish-in-a-blender kind of
> art,thus leaving the public tio theír own frustration like: I´dont get
> it, this can´t be art, nobody nows what art is, I make up what i like,
> and thats got to be art...
Yes, but there's an extra dimension: a big chunk of the establishment think
it is their duty to offend, shock, disappoint, or "challenge" the public.