Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad....

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 25/6/2012 11:21:54 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

I dont understand why that alone cannot be celebrated tho (in that specific case, which most of us seem to acknowledge as an impressive technical feat). Care to explain?


But that would be a slightly different discussion. There are plenty of impressive technical feats which, while admirable, are not readily classified as "art".


By the definition of the artist himself the work under discussion is "art", and the line of enquiry inspired by Spaldron's point was in keeping with that. I guess the question that I'm posing as that even if an audience can't respect a piece of art for its conceptual meaning, then should the technique also be ignored?

Funnily enough this is often the same discussion centred around well-made but ultimately lacking blockbuster movies!

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 61
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 25/6/2012 11:44:13 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

By the definition of the artist himself the work under discussion is "art", and the line of enquiry inspired by Spaldron's point was in keeping with that. I guess the question that I'm posing as that even if an audience can't respect a piece of art for its conceptual meaning, then should the technique also be ignored?

Funnily enough this is often the same discussion centred around well-made but ultimately lacking blockbuster movies!


Fair point, but I am, as stated, far from convinced that the person who makes the piece should be the one who decides whether it is art or not.

As for technique...

It is not really any more sophisticated a feat of engineering than that used by the makers of Stonehenge. In fact it is far less impressive as there was no heavy lifting machinery way back when.

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 62
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 25/6/2012 11:53:18 PM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
If you don't like it you can simply move on and ignore it.


The key word being "can". You don't have to acknowledge that it exists if its very presence makes you feel so outraged. I'm not saying that anyone should (simply ignore it), but that if they are incapable of forming a serious opposing discourse then why concern themselves with something that they profess to dislike so much? Blind negativity is so very boring, at least try and say something genuine interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
I didn't realise that we had to conform to such a limited set of pre-conceived ideas.


Again, your twisting my words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
If conceptual art is really a form of any value, surely it can stand up to a bit of rib-tickling at its inherent absurdity. An absurdity, by the way, that is absolutely critical to its state of being.


Of course it can. But it's a shame to see a thread that has could actually be used to discuss something in an interesting descend in to "HOW STUPID IS ART THAT I ADMITTEDLY DONT UNDERSTAND/AM COMPLETELY IGNORANT TOWARDS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" and dick jokes. No one is attempting to analyse the artists intent or anything of the sort, it's just the sort of "this looks stupid", "anyone can do that", "overpriced rubbish" rhetoric that can be found in the comments section of any news article related to any piece of vaguely challenging art.


When did you get to define what is, or isn't art and berate others for not sharing your opinion? Once again, this seems to me extremely high handed. For someone supposedly preaching an open mind when it comes to creative works, the fairly typical, extremely patronising argument of 'you don't like it, therefore you don't understand it and/or are stupid is, well, extremely narrow minded. Don't you think?





_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 63
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 25/6/2012 11:58:08 PM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park
quote:

By the definition of the artist himself the work under discussion is "art", and the line of enquiry inspired by Spaldron's point was in keeping with that. I guess the question that I'm posing as that even if an audience can't respect a piece of art for its conceptual meaning, then should the technique also be ignored?


By that definition, the drawings included in this thread have just as much merit as anything you've mentioned. This is the central problem: who judges which concept has merit and which doesn't. I believe that badir's pictures are a finely-honed critique of the conceptual art scene using satire. You believe that a rock on a walkway has transcendental meaning. Who gets to judge which is more viable?

_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 64
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 12:12:47 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere
I view art as a language I don't speak and have little intention of learning. I look at a piece and I either like it or I don't but if someone wants to spend £8m on it then good luck to them.

I have a Rothko print on my wall, Red on Black. I couldn't have less of an idea what the artist was trying to say with it but looking at it makes me feel nice. Some of Bacon's work makes me feel uneasy which is kinda the point, I suppose.

I do, however, think that anyone who displays a Klimt probably needs retinal surgery.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 65
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 6:18:26 AM   
JessFranco


Posts: 2523
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

quote:

By the definition of the artist himself the work under discussion is "art", and the line of enquiry inspired by Spaldron's point was in keeping with that. I guess the question that I'm posing as that even if an audience can't respect a piece of art for its conceptual meaning, then should the technique also be ignored?


By that definition, the drawings included in this thread have just as much merit as anything you've mentioned. This is the central problem: who judges which concept has merit and which doesn't. I believe that badir's pictures are a finely-honed critique of the conceptual art scene using satire. You believe that a rock on a walkway has transcendental meaning. Who gets to judge which is more viable?


I think that conceptual art demands a different critical approach than purely visual / aesthetic art, though. To some degree, if you look at a bad painting or a bad photograph you can make a fairly snap judgement over whether you think it has any merit. With conceptual art, i'm not sure the same is true. Not understanding a work is perfectly legitimate but i don't think it can be written off instantly because its ideas are not immediately obvious. Conceptual art can require some thought and explanation, and an openness to that is necessary to really engage with it in a meaningful way. Which is not to say that it ultimately won't still be "bad art" in a lot of cases.


_____________________________

Even the French know better than to fuck with me

http://closer-to-perfection.tumblr.com/

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 66
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 8:45:52 AM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7928
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria

quote:

ORIGINAL: JessFranco


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

quote:

By the definition of the artist himself the work under discussion is "art", and the line of enquiry inspired by Spaldron's point was in keeping with that. I guess the question that I'm posing as that even if an audience can't respect a piece of art for its conceptual meaning, then should the technique also be ignored?


By that definition, the drawings included in this thread have just as much merit as anything you've mentioned. This is the central problem: who judges which concept has merit and which doesn't. I believe that badir's pictures are a finely-honed critique of the conceptual art scene using satire. You believe that a rock on a walkway has transcendental meaning. Who gets to judge which is more viable?


I think that conceptual art demands a different critical approach than purely visual / aesthetic art, though. To some degree, if you look at a bad painting or a bad photograph you can make a fairly snap judgement over whether you think it has any merit. With conceptual art, i'm not sure the same is true. Not understanding a work is perfectly legitimate but i don't think it can be written off instantly because its ideas are not immediately obvious. Conceptual art can require some thought and explanation, and an openness to that is necessary to really engage with it in a meaningful way. Which is not to say that it ultimately won't still be "bad art" in a lot of cases.



Doesn't that hold true to all art in general though? I see no real difference between how one engages with conceptual art and other forms. The expectation that the audience should judge and engage with conceptual art on a different basis to the norm in order to understand is simply pretentious posturing from the artist. Likewise, that's not to say all conceptual art is bad...

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to JessFranco)
Post #: 67
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 9:32:10 AM   
JessFranco


Posts: 2523
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
It holds true to some extent, certainly. Conceptual art is probably more reliant on non-literal interpretations than most other forms though. There can be layers of complexity in a renaissance painting that benefit from exploration but it also functions as a beautiful visual object. When the complexity is integral to work that explicitly limits a literal interpretation, it becomes essential to at least try to engage with the ideas behind it in a different way.



_____________________________

Even the French know better than to fuck with me

http://closer-to-perfection.tumblr.com/

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 68
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 9:59:27 AM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot


quote:

ORIGINAL: JessFranco


I think that conceptual art demands a different critical approach than purely visual / aesthetic art, though. To some degree, if you look at a bad painting or a bad photograph you can make a fairly snap judgement over whether you think it has any merit. With conceptual art, i'm not sure the same is true. Not understanding a work is perfectly legitimate but i don't think it can be written off instantly because its ideas are not immediately obvious. Conceptual art can require some thought and explanation, and an openness to that is necessary to really engage with it in a meaningful way. Which is not to say that it ultimately won't still be "bad art" in a lot of cases.



Doesn't that hold true to all art in general though? I see no real difference between how one engages with conceptual art and other forms. The expectation that the audience should judge and engage with conceptual art on a different basis to the norm in order to understand is simply pretentious posturing from the artist. Likewise, that's not to say all conceptual art is bad...


I think the part you bolded reaches the core of my issue with some conceptual art.

If the concept behind the piece needs to be explained before it makes sense then, as an expression of that concept, the piece fails. The blank piece of paper in the exhibition referenced in the opening post is just that: a blank piece of paper. It is only when we are told that the artist stared at it for a ridiculous amount of time that any sort of meaning is derived.

I'm sure there are posters on the walls of countless teenage boys' bedrooms which have been subject to a similar quantum of staring. Does that elevate them to works of art (above and beyond the subject matter of said poster)? If not why not?

If it is because they are not holding themselves out as artists? Would it change things if they decided they were?

Similarly the same artist's empty bit of space where a witch placed a curse is only meaningful when we are told that is in fact what happened: although how can anyone be sure the curse is still there. Maybe it attached itself to someone who walked past and is now miles away. Maybe it just drifted away. From a more pragmatic perspective, how would one sell such a thing? And how could one be sure the bit of empty space they bought was indeed the one with the curse. I'd imagine it would be quite easy to be sold a forgery.

The plinth once briefly occupied by Andy Warhol certainly counts as memorabilia, but I'm far less certain that it counts as art.

I don't hate all conceptual art. I think Duchamp's urinal was brilliant. But it was brilliant because it was witty and because it was a biting piece of satire. It worked because it lampooned the art establishment by pointing out how silly it was. Now those who would have erstwhile been those lampooning have become the establishment it has all become deathly serious and those who don't kowtow to them find themselves out on their ear.

I guess it is what happens when you take anything not inherently serious seriously. Which is why I try not to.

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 69
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 10:09:31 AM   
JessFranco


Posts: 2523
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
quote:

If the concept behind the piece needs to be explained before it makes sense then, as an expression of that concept, the piece fails.


Oblique expressions of a concept can surely be just as valid as direct ones. I don't think art has to work independently of context.

My favourite artist at the moment is Marina Abramovic. Run one of her performances in the middle of a shopping centre and she'd be locked up. Run it in a gallery, with explanatory notes and a receptive audience, and it's some of the most interesting work in decades.

quote:

Now those who would have erstwhile been those lampooning have become the establishment it has all become deathly serious and those who don't kowtow to them find themselves out on their ear.


I think the opposite is actually true of lots of British art at the moment. Lots of obvious telegraphed jokes and not enough concept!


< Message edited by JessFranco -- 26/6/2012 10:11:07 AM >


_____________________________

Even the French know better than to fuck with me

http://closer-to-perfection.tumblr.com/

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 70
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 10:32:35 AM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: JessFranco

quote:

If the concept behind the piece needs to be explained before it makes sense then, as an expression of that concept, the piece fails.


Oblique expressions of a concept can surely be just as valid as direct ones. I don't think art has to work independently of context.

My favourite artist at the moment is Marina Abramovic. Run one of her performances in the middle of a shopping centre and she'd be locked up. Run it in a gallery, with explanatory notes and a receptive audience, and it's some of the most interesting work in decades.


Similar to how a large, possibly even tasteful, photograph of a naked woman with her legs open in a cheap, top shelf magazine is probably pornography, but the same photograph in a expensive hardcover book is probably art.

It all depends on how you sell it, and if you're buying I certainly won't judge you. If you find value in this sort of art I'm certainly in no position to criticise.

I can't get past the notion that there is a joke somewhere, at the audience's expense, and I'm not in on it.

(in reply to JessFranco)
Post #: 71
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 10:46:42 AM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
When did you get to define what is, or isn't art and berate others for not sharing your opinion? Once again, this seems to me extremely high handed.


I havent berated anyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
By that definition, the drawings included in this thread have just as much merit as anything you've mentioned. This is the central problem: who judges which concept has merit and which doesn't. I believe that badir's pictures are a finely-honed critique of the conceptual art scene using satire.
You believe that a rock on a walkway has transcendental meaning. Who gets to judge which is more viable?


Well for a start the intention behind the drawings in this thread were of to take the piss. And I haven't said anything about the rock's artistic credibility, because I haven't seen it as intended nor read enough about the creators intentions.

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 72
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 10:47:28 AM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
For someone supposedly preaching an open mind when it comes to creative works, the fairly typical, extremely patronising argument of 'you don't like it, therefore you don't understand it and/or are stupid is, well, extremely narrow minded. Don't you think?


Have you read the whole thread? I'm quoting the naysayers when they say they don't understand it. I've not called anyone stupid.

And just to reiterate, I'm all for genuine discussion (as per the latter half of this page), but surely I'm not alone in thinking that the to-ing and thro-ing of "Look at this, isn't it stupid?" without attempting to untangle just why it might be "stupid" is a terribly boring activity? I'm all for hearing why people disagree with the intentions of an artist, but no one is delving in to that.

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 26/6/2012 11:08:45 AM >

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 73
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 11:24:51 AM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park
quote:

Well for a start the intention behind the drawings in this thread were of to take the piss.


As is a fairly large percentage of 'established' concept art, as by way of rallying against a perceived conformity. Don't really think there's an arguement there.

You do realise that 'taking the piss' is probably one of concept art's greatest traditions? And there is an arguement to be made, a subjective arguement, granted, that all the 'established' works that have been mentioned in this thread so far are doing the same.

Complaining that people aren't taking concept art seriously is to negate the process of personal interpretation of the worth of a piece. The key here being personal interpretation.

For me, the afforementioned 'piss taking' (as you so quickly dismiss it) acts as a more interesting conceptual piece on criticism of art in todays modern media, using modern media and art than anything else that has been mentioned so far, apart from perhaps the Warholl plinth, but that is due to my own personal preference.


_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 74
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 12:01:31 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

quote:

Well for a start the intention behind the drawings in this thread were of to take the piss.


As is a fairly large percentage of 'established' concept art, as by way of rallying against a perceived conformity. Don't really think there's an arguement there.


Ha, really? You genuinely don't see a difference between the jpegs in this thread and the work its supposed to be imitating? Say what you will about the quality of the Rothko's, but are you also saying that you reject the intention too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

You do realise that 'taking the piss' is probably one of concept art's greatest traditions? And there is an arguement to be made, a subjective arguement, granted, that all the 'established' works that have been mentioned in this thread so far are doing the same.


Of course there is, and yes its subjective, but there's a vast difference between works that ridiculed society/politics/the establishment (Duchamp etc) and the laziness of the ever negative online voice of the ill-informed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
Complaining that people aren't taking concept art seriously is to negate the process of personal interpretation of the worth of a piece. The key here being personal interpretation.


I'm not complaining about conceptual art being ridiculed, rather the lack of imagination being employed to do so. It's lazy, and dull, and we could all do so much better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
For me, the afforementioned 'piss taking' (as you so quickly dismiss it) acts as a more interesting conceptual piece on criticism of art in todays modern media, using modern media and art than anything else that has been mentioned so far, apart from perhaps the Warholl plinth, but that is due to my own personal preference.


I think you're giving yourself far too much credit.

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 75
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 12:11:06 PM   
jonson


Posts: 9150
Joined: 30/9/2005
I love these threads, the patronising comments that fly back and forth are brilliant.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JessFranco

My favourite artist at the moment is Marina Abramovic.


I've just designed a piece of furniture for her. I've never met her but she liked it.

_____________________________

I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.

(in reply to JessFranco)
Post #: 76
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 12:12:55 PM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

quote:

Well for a start the intention behind the drawings in this thread were of to take the piss.


As is a fairly large percentage of 'established' concept art, as by way of rallying against a perceived conformity. Don't really think there's an arguement there.


Ha, really? You genuinely don't see a difference between the jpegs in this thread and the work its supposed to be imitating? Say what you will about the quality of the Rothko's, but are you also saying that you reject the intention too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

You do realise that 'taking the piss' is probably one of concept art's greatest traditions? And there is an arguement to be made, a subjective arguement, granted, that all the 'established' works that have been mentioned in this thread so far are doing the same.


Of course there is, and yes its subjective, but there's a vast difference between works that ridiculed society/politics/the establishment (Duchamp etc) and the laziness of the ever negative online voice of the ill-informed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
Complaining that people aren't taking concept art seriously is to negate the process of personal interpretation of the worth of a piece. The key here being personal interpretation.


I'm not complaining about conceptual art being ridiculed, rather the lack of imagination being employed to do so. It's lazy, and dull, and we could all do so much better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
For me, the afforementioned 'piss taking' (as you so quickly dismiss it) acts as a more interesting conceptual piece on criticism of art in todays modern media, using modern media and art than anything else that has been mentioned so far, apart from perhaps the Warholl plinth, but that is due to my own personal preference.


I think you're giving yourself far too much credit.


As you may be with all the established art that you have mentioned so far.

What you are doing at the moment is exactly what you are accusing others of doing. You're supposedly trying to rally against supposed negativity and laziness by being negative and lazy in your interpretation of a piece that you feel has no worth in your entirely subjective opinion.

Isn't that supposed to be what you're arguing against?

_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 77
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 12:15:26 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7928
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria














































































































I'm not complaining about conceptual art being ridiculed, rather the lack of imagination being employed to do so. It's lazy, and dull, and we could all do so much better.




















































































































< Message edited by clownfoot -- 26/6/2012 12:16:24 PM >


_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 78
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 12:18:10 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
Wow, I didn’t expect that to stoke the fire to that extent!


Adambatman - you keep saying conceptual, but I still don’t understand the point of it. Turning conceptual art into something I DO understand for a minute – I’m a huge fan of prog rock (I welcome any ribbing, but please keep total hijack to the music forum) which, as you may or may not know, is full to the brim with concept albums by Genesis, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, Pink Floyd, Gentle Giant, Frank Zappa, Led Zeppelin (I know Led Zep aren’t really prog, but they certainly dipped their feet into the genre) etc etc. Now, regardless of how good or how bad anyone thinks those albums are, it cannot be denied that a lot of thought and painstaking work has gone into writing, recording, producing and performing each and every one of them, and the end result is a proper piece of “art” – it’s tangible, you can hear words being sung and instruments being played, you can follow a story (except in the case of Yes…) and it all makes sense (except in the case of Yes…). The same with films – regardless of how pointless they are, whether even Lynch himself understands what he’s doing half the time (I suspect not), whether we have any hope of attaining a complete understanding of most of Alejandro Jodorowsky’s works, there is still an obvious amount of work that has gone into them and an obvious concept in place. Granted, there are exceptions – Philip Glass’ 4’ 33’ (or whatever it’s called – the silent one), and that film which is about forty hours long and is just a static shot of a building – but these exceptions, I think, prove my point even further, in that someone has taken something, done next to nothing with it, then stepped back from it and told us that it’s a piece of important art.

Going back to the rock thing – some bloke’s just seen a boulder in the desert and thought “hey, that would look good perched on top of a walkway”. I’m not denying that it doesn’t look good, or saying that the bloke is wrong, but how is that any different from anyone who thinks a picture or piece of furniture would look good in a certain place in their lounge? What is the “concept” behind it? Playing devil’s, can we even be sure there IS a concept behind it? The films and music noted above, there is a concept there – the proof is up there on screen or in your ears. But with this rock thing (and countless others), are we supposed to nod knowingly and stroke our chins in agreement about a concept that isn’t tangible because some arty twat has told us that it’s there? All that we know for sure is that a rock has been lifted into place by a crane. Yeah, okay, it took weeks/months to get to its resting place, travelling at slow speeds all through America. But a static mobile holiday home manufactured and built in the UK and bought by someone who wants to put it on a campsite in the South of France goes through much the same process and has to be lifted into a specific place when it gets there – is that art if someone says it is? Who’s to say that Rothko(cos other people have subsequently mentioned him now)’s working art day consisted of him getting up in the morning, choosing a (random) colour or three and spending a few minutes pasting them onto a canvas and blending them at the edges, do that a few times and produce five “masterpieces” in, say, an hour (twenty minutes of that coming up with wanky sounding titles), and then spending the rest of the day watching TV or going to some trendy café and shooting the shit with some broke beat poets, or something. To me that just reeks of con.

Going back to films, even the likes of Ed Wood and Ray Dennis Steckler devoted months of their lives and poured their heart and soul into every single one of their terrible (TERRIBLE) films, and the proof of the effort and forethought is there for all to see. Hell, even my Gary and Nicky Show shows have more effort and thought put into them than 99% of the shit that’s bandied around as being important art, and I don’t for one second claim that they are masterpieces. I don’t even claim that they are good. But hell, I worked hard on them! I can’t believe that Rothko or any similar modern/conceptual artist has given any time or effort to their work, with an awful lot of the more established ones not even DOING the work themselves, and then we’re supposed to be oh-so fawning about it all cos they ruffle their neckerchiefs and say that it’s a social/political/ethical comment on something or other, and then some chinless public school wonder guffaws and says “oh yes, it’s SOOOOOOOOO important and holds a mirror up to society” (probably talking about a used hair brush with most of the bristles missing, sat in a cat’s used litter tray or something [ - MY IDEA, BEFORE ANY OF YOU TOERAGS STEAL IT!!!!!!!]).

So it’s not just total con – it’s also lazy.

They saw us coming, and are laughing all the way to the bank. And, at that point, I guess I have to say fair play to them for detecting a weakness and filling that niche desire with a minimum of thought, work and effort…


_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 79
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 12:59:36 PM   
JessFranco


Posts: 2523
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
quote:

Going back to the rock thing – some bloke’s just seen a boulder in the desert and thought “hey, that would look good perched on top of a walkway”.


That's a huge, and almost certainly incorrect, assumption. Heizer's dedicated his career to large-scale land art and produced a lot of material to support his theoretical visions. Whether or not he's successful at conveying his ideas in an immediately apparent format, it's hard to deny the effort and thought that goes into his work.

Similarly, if you want to talk about effort, Abramovic has literally risked her health / life on a number of occasions in the cause of performance art.These are people who will literally bleed for their work.

quote:

I've just designed a piece of furniture for her. I've never met her but she liked it


Awesome!

< Message edited by JessFranco -- 26/6/2012 1:00:02 PM >


_____________________________

Even the French know better than to fuck with me

http://closer-to-perfection.tumblr.com/

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 80
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 1:49:16 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

What you are doing at the moment is exactly what you are accusing others of doing. You're supposedly trying to rally against supposed negativity and laziness by being negative and lazy in your interpretation of a piece that you feel has no worth in your entirely subjective opinion.

Isn't that supposed to be what you're arguing against?


Not really: the work I'm ridiculing and being negative towards wasn't created with any sense of sincerity, it was made to prove a silly point on an internet forum. And for the record I'd react with the same attitude towards any piece that was created for that reason (an off the cuff and a poorly constructed aside) regardless of the person who made it.

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 81
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 1:58:39 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
the work I'm ridiculing and being negative towards wasn't created with any sense of sincerity


Can you, hand on heart, honestly tell me that a blank wall or piece of paper (which you sort-of defended on page one of this very thread, albeit at the same time admitting you wouldn't want to pay the asking price to "see" it) has any sincerity behind it at all??? (Despite what the "artist" tells us, I mean)

Because if the answer is yes, that means I can take those same pictures I've posted in jest in this thread, not do a single thing to them, and put them in a new thread and sincerely and seriously profess a meaning (/concept) behind them and they can then become "proper" concept art.

Which is, blatantly, ridiculous.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 82
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 2:02:42 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: JessFranco
That's a huge, and almost certainly incorrect, assumption. Heizer's dedicated his career to large-scale land art and produced a lot of material to support his theoretical visions. Whether or not he's successful at conveying his ideas in an immediately apparent format, it's hard to deny the effort and thought that goes into his work.


Admittedly I have not investigated the artist fully, but everything I have read about this particular piece of work has just been the artist offering self-biographical mental recall as evidence for his "hard work". I have seen no proof to suggest that he didn't just happen to see a boulder he thought was the right shape and size for a piece of landscape "art" in a built environment.

I am willing to eat those words if someone CAN prove that that wasn't what happened (other than an interview with the guy from ten years ago where he says "one day I want to make a boulder float in mid air").

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to JessFranco)
Post #: 83
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 2:04:17 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Adambatman - you keep saying conceptual, but I still don’t understand the point of it.



Which comes back to my ultimate point: you admittedly don't understand it, and you don't seem to want to try to, so why bother caring at all? This isn't meant to sound snarky, I'm being straight. I don't like Prog-Rock, but I wouldn't go out of my way to declare everyone who does to be suckers, which is seemingly what you're implying with statements like "they saw us coming". And besides, as JessFranco said, you're making very clear assumptions about things that are very clearly catalogued elsewhere (i.e. if you want to you can learn about these things).


(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 84
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 2:08:01 PM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

What you are doing at the moment is exactly what you are accusing others of doing. You're supposedly trying to rally against supposed negativity and laziness by being negative and lazy in your interpretation of a piece that you feel has no worth in your entirely subjective opinion.

Isn't that supposed to be what you're arguing against?


Not really: the work I'm ridiculing and being negative towards wasn't created with any sense of sincerity, it was made to prove a silly point on an internet forum. And for the record I'd react with the same attitude towards any piece that was created for that reason (an off the cuff and a poorly constructed aside) regardless of the person who made it.


Once again, that's a subjective opinion. I could argue that nothing that has been mentioned on the thread so far has been created with any form of sincerity (which I believe, is the crux of the arguement and the problem that many people have with concept art).

I don't believe that sincerity necessarily equals art. To me it harkens back to the old 'suffering artist' stereotype and is too narrow a definition.

_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 85
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 2:09:44 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Can you, hand on heart, honestly tell me that a blank wall or piece of paper (which you sort-of defended on page one of this very thread, albeit at the same time admitting you wouldn't want to pay the asking price to "see" it) has any sincerity behind it at all???


I won't just blindly defend any piece of conceptual art (and dislike as much of it as I like), but it all depends on the artist and whether or not I find them to be sincere in their production of the work. You're using an extreme example in the blank piece of paper, which I've neither seen nor read anything about, nor do I even know who's behind it. If I had then maybe I would find it sincere, but like I say I'm not in a position to judge it right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir
(Despite what the "artist" tells us, I mean)


It's not really a case of "despite what the artist tells us" tho: I still don't understand why you're saying the piece should be separated from the intent.

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 86
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 2:12:44 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar
Once again, that's a subjective opinion. I could argue that nothing that has been mentioned on the thread so far has been created with any form of sincerity (which I believe, is the crux of the arguement and the problem that many people have with concept art).


Go on then. Explain how Levitated Mass is a work without a shred of sincerity.

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 87
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 2:30:05 PM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park
I think someone already stated that there really is no gurantee that the artist didn't just think 'I'll put that rock on that walkway, it'll look good.'

The question is how much you accept an artist's interpretation of what you are seeing over your own view of what you are seeing. This is, once again, one of the things people rail against when it comes to concept art. It's difficult to enter a willfull suspension of disbelief purely on someone else's say so.

If the arguement is that this must be used to engage in any piece of concept art than it must be applied to in all, (even the terribly low and base stuff that's been created for this thread) especially if the artist decrees it.

It's easy to dismiss something as not being art if you don't like it. I'm with you there. It's about subjective validation.





_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 88
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 2:53:00 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

I think someone already stated that there really is no gurantee that the artist didn't just think 'I'll put that rock on that walkway, it'll look good.'

The question is how much you accept an artist's interpretation of what you are seeing over your own view of what you are seeing. This is, once again, one of the things people rail against when it comes to concept art. It's difficult to enter a willfull suspension of disbelief purely on someone else's say so.

If the arguement is that this must be used to engage in any piece of concept art than it must be applied to in all, (even the terribly low and base stuff that's been created for this thread) especially if the artist decrees it.

It's easy to dismiss something as not being art if you don't like it. I'm with you there. It's about subjective validation.


And at last we're in agreement about something.

I do think there is a danger of being overly cynical about a lot of what is referred to as modern art (re- "I think someone already stated that there really is no gurantee that the artist didn't just think 'I'll put that rock on that walkway, it'll look good.'") but having read up on the process behind the project I'm convinced that the project is informed by a sincerity on the behalf of the artist. Trust is obviously subjective anyway.

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 89
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 26/6/2012 3:30:45 PM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunstar

I think someone already stated that there really is no gurantee that the artist didn't just think 'I'll put that rock on that walkway, it'll look good.'

The question is how much you accept an artist's interpretation of what you are seeing over your own view of what you are seeing. This is, once again, one of the things people rail against when it comes to concept art. It's difficult to enter a willfull suspension of disbelief purely on someone else's say so.

If the arguement is that this must be used to engage in any piece of concept art than it must be applied to in all, (even the terribly low and base stuff that's been created for this thread) especially if the artist decrees it.

It's easy to dismiss something as not being art if you don't like it. I'm with you there. It's about subjective validation.


And at last we're in agreement about something.

I do think there is a danger of being overly cynical about a lot of what is referred to as modern art (re- "I think someone already stated that there really is no gurantee that the artist didn't just think 'I'll put that rock on that walkway, it'll look good.'") but having read up on the process behind the project I'm convinced that the project is informed by a sincerity on the behalf of the artist. Trust is obviously subjective anyway.


And that's the problem - someone stated before (it might actually have been you, I'm not sure) if you look at painting, (dependent on what it is of course) there is an immediate recognisability and it's up to the viewer to make their own assumption. Whereas, in a lot of concept art the artist acts as a 'middleman' for want of a better word, explaining the significance of the piece, what it represents etc...

It's this explanation that people are weary of and where the trust issue comes in. People want to make up their own mind as to the validaity of something, not have it translated to them and then blindly accept whatever version is given.

I actually like the walkway rock. It's unusual to have a rock on the walkway, but for me, that's as far as it goes. Levitation and the rest of the underlying themes purported to be held within by the artist are of no concern to me whatsoever and, to be honest, I believe they are just dressing.

Why? Because with a viable explanation as to the idea behind a piece you could justify anything. The process of justification becomes more important than the piece itself essentially turning it into a sales pitch.

And that, unfortunately is what a lot of concept art is, and only what it is: a clever sales pitch advertising a useless product. This is what I baulk at.

I am aware that this is a generalisation, but I don't think it's a massive one.


_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094