blonde poker forum

On R5 earlier, there was a funny interview with Martin Creed. Creed is an "artist" who has recently been successful in having his work included in the Tate Modern.  His Work No 401 is a recording of himself blowing raspberries into a microphone for 9 minutes.  This is then played on a loop. Tate Modern staff have complained because they find it annoying ( I don't blame them ).

I am not an expert when it comes to art, so I am not going to criticise this artist or any other. However I must admit I prefer what I would describe as "proper" art. By proper art I am referring to a picture or painting. But of course what one person terms art can be very different to another.

Creed has had other art successes. He is a turner prize winner with his Work No 227: The Lights Going On and Off. This is where a set of lights were programmed to turn on and off at set intervals.  Mr school physics teacher showed me a similar "work of art" during an electronics class once.

Perhaps I am just getting old, but I much prefer a painting of a lake with swans or even some of Derren Browns caricatures found on his website than this type of art.  There must be a level of talent there that I am not artistic enough or intelligent enough to appreciate. The artist mentioned his desire to express himself and the blowing of raspberries allowed him to achieve this. 

It sounds like I am criticising, I am not. I think there are certain things in life that people arrogantly think they could do as well. My first thought was  " I could do that. That isn't art ". But after thinking about it, maybe I couldn't. Perhaps this type of art is something that 50 years from now will be admired rather than ridiculed. If I am unfortunate enough to have to listen to any of the music from the Top 40, I normally think to myself something along the same lines   " God that's bloody awful. I could do that better than him  ". But recently, I have began to change my opinion. It isn't my cup of tea, but millions of others think it is great. They can't all be stupid.

 Each to their own I guess. I will stick with my Lake and swans paintings and keep listening to a WHO album for now though.  :D

Do youi mean you prefer swans to penguins?

lol   :D

I saw some 'art expert' saying good art makes you think - but most of what he showed make me think "What a pile of keech". I don't think that's what he was getting at.

I got Banksy's book & consider his stuff far more artistic than a completely blue canvas, or a shed that is turned into a boat then back into a shed, or a ball of paper......

The tent.  The line of bottles on a wall.  The damaged speaker from a stereo . 

To me these aren't as good as a painting of something. But I am not an artist.

<a href="http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZBYYYYYYYYGB" target="_blank">[img width= height= alt=Tongue Out" border="0]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_22.gif[/img][/url]

The Tate Modern is a wonderful place, but very strange at the same time. When I last went there the main exhibit required visitors to stand in the middle of a white tube and watch as different fluorescent colours were displayed on the white walls to the sound of white noise and static. Very odd.

I like the exhibitions at the Royal Academy and used to spend time in the Portrait gallery too...give me old masters rather than contemporary any day

Thing is though Banksy's graffiti can be more thought provoking than loads of portraits, or even great pictures like The Haywain etc... His objects hidden in plain sight were good as well - like the shark fins in the pond at Regent's park - or his vandal crows (destroying security cameras) - they all work for me better than a picture of someone/something...

yes but no but hmmmm...speechless

So do you mean to say that if I record my kids farting I could make a fortune????

i'm an art lover of most kinds but some stuff now is just toss. I saw an exhibition of  called neanderthals or something and all it was were two monkey/man people holding hands, fair enough the sculptures were pretty good but then i found out the 'artists' hadn't even done the sculpting it was just there idea and they paid someone to actually make the sculptures.

I've still not received my half of the commission for posing for that!! :'(

lol :D

An good artist would never have to explain why his art is good, or why you should like it

I reckon they have a forum somewhere in cybersapce, on this forum they are all having a little competiton to see whats the most stupid thing they can get into a muserm/gallery.

Its the only logical explination!

Flushy you might be right, but I reckon they also judge by how much they are awarded to do said 'art'.

This kinda thing annoys me soooo much.  What is their talent / skill that makes what they do any better than what a 5 year old does every day in the playground?  

When people watch this kinda thing with a thoughtful look on their face, what are they actually thinking?  how on earth can a guy blowing raspberries be thought provoking?  

Until someone explains to me what makes all this nonsense worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, and worth of continuing support from charities / lotteries when the money could go to what i consider much worthier causes, I am going to continue to be frustrated by it all.  

Talent is a guy that can capture a moment on a canvass/sculpture - that's what I consider to be art, and I like and am open to a number of styles of art, not just realism.  I love sitting down and having a sketch done by a characature artist - those guys are great.  

Please help me understand all this - I'd love to be more open minded about it all, but it's very hard....

I agree.  I would love to be able to draw, but sadly I am completely crap.  There was a picture I did when I was about 6 yrs old. It used to hang in my Grans house for years.  The technique I brought to the work was called "Insane Scribbling". That was more art to me than a guy blowing raspberries.  It was an absolutely terrible picture and what made it worse was for years afterwards all of my grans bingo friends used to say  " ayyeee Sussie you have an artist there "  lol

Its purely a matter of taste, in the same way Music covers a wide spectrum, say from Classical to Death Metal & Jazz to Boy Band Pop. So Art also covers an equally wide spectrum. I confess to not understanding why raspberry blowing would or should be considered Art, but I do like Damien Hirst & Tracey Emin's work, & thats been criticised in the media. I'll always pop into Tate Modern if I'm near there, its a great place, some of it is incomprehensible, but alot is just wonderful.

Yep I see where you're coming from, although I'd say that the music equivalent of this type of art would be someone randomly bashing a load of keys on a piano (or blowing raspberries down a trumpet!!).  That type of music would never sell / get support so why does this art?  Other types of music all require talent (well maybe with the excption of bob the builder-esque songs which are just commercially driven). 

I can see the appeal of some of Hirst's / Emin's work, but I'm still completely lost when it comes to the bulk of 'modern' art.

And what may i ask is wrong with that - i take it you've heard me play before....... :'(



[attachment deleted by admin]

 :D :D :D :D  n1

I used to live in Spain and took a trip to the Salvador Dali museum one day.

I have always been a HUGE fan so I was not going to be put off with the horrendous journey to get to this little village in the middle of nowhere.

The building itself was very impressive, the courtyard in particular was breathtaking.

In amoungst all these awesome pieces of art there was a corridor with about 10 canvasses on the wall. Each one looked like a couple of carpet tacks had been placed on a white canvas and then the canvas spray painted to leaving the shape of the tacks white.....and that was it. I stared at these pictures for a long time and I just didn't get it.  :dontask:

Even in music, sometimes debate can rage pretty hard. Does anyone here recall Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" album?

The problem here as I see it is that a lot of modern music is commerical, in that it is designed to appeal to a particular audience. Boy Bands, for example - there is a cynical marketing strategy at work here, based on kids' pocket money and how music companies can get hold of it.

Art doesn't necessarily fall into that trap - for better or for worse, the meaning of what constitutes good art has changed over the years. These days, art constitutes an idea, rather than a physical "thing"; it is possible for someone to be an artist without actually being able to sculpt, paint, or what-have-you.

I agree that some kinds of modern art are ludicrous. This is usually because I don't subscribe to the ideas behind them, or believe that the idea is truly worth the contemplation (Most Turner stuff falls into this category for me). I also believe that being an artist is more than just generating ideas; I have to believe that the execution of the idea requires some form of skill or talent that the average untrained person cannot replicate.

A painter, for example, can have the idea of a particular 'scene' that he or she wants to paint - but also implied is the skill and talent (honed by practice) that it takes to make that vision a reality.

Finally, we have the concept of authorship. There was a time, when artists did not create their works alone - rather they were masters, and had apprentices, and supervised the creation of the painting, sculpture, building, whatever. I think it was either Leonardo or Michelangelo who re-wrote that concept, by doing most if not all of their work themselves, without apprentices. So we get the modern idea of the artists as sole 'author' of their work. Now, with works like the one mentioned by ACE2M (thought up by the artist, but constructed by someone else), the concept of authorship in modern art is also changing.

In the end, human beings have always struggled with the definition of art, and even more so with criteria for what good art should be. Art evolves as we evolve. All any of us can say for sure, is what we like, and what we don't - although I suppose it helps if we can articulate the reasons why...

I like Dali's  "Melting Clocks" painting

Jack Vettriano's paintings  The Singing Butler and The Cigar Girl are great. I have the calendar 

I also like Tracey emmin's work.

Before she rose to prominence, I never realised that everytime i left my bed unmade with  socks and pizza cartons round it, I was not in fact being a scruffy, disorganised teenager but was merely parading the magnificence of my artistry as I lobbed my keks across my bedroom.

Can I be awkward and say that art is a most overrated thing.......

I am not a huge fan. But I wish I was able to draw.  I mess up stick men

Remember when someone nailed 2 blocks of wood together and the art world went all doolally fawning over the "artist"?
The Sun nailed 2 blocks of wood together and tried to sell it to the Tate but they said it was't art!!!

 :D

A perfect example of the bollox that is 'art'

Does it matter which part of your body the raspberries come from? I may have hidden talent!

and I would be the 2nd coming of DaVinci, with my own film and everything.........I wouldnt mind but he never even had a code......

"I mess up Stick men".....!

"Modern" Art - or is it Modern "Art" - is above me, I'm afraid. I have a suspicion that it's the Emporor's Clothes thing. But the Art World could never admit to being duped, so Art it is.

I cannot ever imagine believing in Modern Art, any more than I could ever accept that Astrology makes an iota of sense, that ghosts exist, or that aliens have visited us. Then again, if I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not believe a TV Pcture could squeeze down that tinsy little wire, or that I could sit in front my PC & play poker against players from every Continent, in real time.

I don't consider myself to be part of the "art" world. Yet I can still appreciate some modern art.

What is art, in the traditional sense?
An accurate portrayal on canvas of a real life scene? A pretty picture that some guy in a beret has conjured?
That used to be a very special, much sought after, talent. Back when Tikay was a pup and no bugger had a camera phone. In this day and age, practically everybody has the facility to take a photograph, so there's not nearly as much demand for portrait or landscape painters as there was in days gone by. (Photography, in itself, is a form of art. Let's just forget that for now though.)

Modern art, for me, is anything that makes me stop and look. Something that can inspire thought, something that has contradictions, a pile of crap that represents something else. There is no right or wrong for me as for what is art and what is not. Some things that I consider to be masterpieces, might be widely thought of as pisch, and vice versa.

But thats ok, that's what it's all about as far as I'm concerned. Some of my favourite pieces of "art" are those that represent man's ability to think for himself. I also love the contradiction of a montrosity that is ugly and awkward at first glance, but contains beauty if you look deeply enough.

One final point in my rant. It doesn't have to be in a museum to be art. A lot of design of things such as logos might be considered modern art in a broad definition of the term.

Can I be awkward again and say that some people use the word 'art' to describe things that are interesting to look at....the fact they are interesting doesnt make them 'art'

How would you define art then? Does it need to hang on a wall, or rest atop a plynth?

I'm in hippy wierdo mood, and from the best definition of art that I've heard, everything in this wonderful world could be described with the 'A' word.

With the possible exception of fatal car crashes. They are interesting to look at, but the familys of the deceased may be nay too happy if I ponced around in a frock declaring it art from yonder hilltop.

Even if I donated half my Turner Prize winnings to the "Drive Properly Foundation"

My point exactly........ 8)

I share the same beliefs with alot of what your post says. 

"I mess up Stick men".....!   =  I draw stick men with squint lines. That's how bad an artist I am  :D

In some respects, Tikay is right - a lot of modern art is just Emperor's New Clothes, in the most literal sense. However, to brandish it all as rubbish does it a disservice. Some modern art is created just to make a point (conceptual art) - like the piece regarded as the first modern art, Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - it doesn't have any artistic merit. The problem with these pieces is that the idea behind them must be really, really good if they are to have any worth.

The street artist Banksey was mentioned earlier, and it's interesting to compare some of his stuff. On the wall next to the River Thames, on the South Bank just beside Westminster Bridge, at a point which is usually taken up by tourists, standing with their back to Big Ben, whilst they have their photo taken, Banksy has sprayed the message 'This is not a photo opportunity'. His point is obvious (don't just collect snapshots of the tourist attractions - actually look at them and appreciate them as interesting objects), but there is no actual technical artistic merit behind it - anyone can spray a phrase on a wall. Personally, I love this - it made me smile when I saw it, as it made a good point, but it's not a piece of art to sit and contemplate - you get the joke and move on.

He went over to Israel and put a series of images on the 'security wall' which divides the West Bank (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm)) which again had a 'point', but this time the images themselves had some artistic merit - they were interesting to look at, even out of context of the situation they were in.

It's mostly conceptual art that people have problems with as a lot of it is, well, lazy rubbish. But not all of it is.

Yea I like that type of art. It is clever