Yeah well, I'm taking a leaf out of Emin soiled book's now...you drove me to it Liana!
And yes, we can agree to disagree...but you can do a BA MA without talent...
1. if you are balsy..i.e. great self-publicist, art admissions board (v. fickle)and are easily bowled over if you can talk the talk.
2. As a mature student, college's require a certain quotient of these, it is easier than as a first timer...I've done both so I've been there.
3. Money, money, money..as with all colleges, students are having to get rich to get in..more fees on the horizon.
With oodles of cash you can get into an MA course withour too much bother...MUST still have the 'talk the talk' though.
Well, I'm exhausted and this gold bikini is creeping up places it really shouldn't be.
Fabulous thread...like being wasted after sex.
[%sig%]
I know nothing about string,rope,elastic,heavy breathing,mud wrestling,bikini's,salmon,baby oil,kippers,flashing buttocks,injections,obscure bouncers...in fact i've never heard of Tolly before tonight...oooh i know nothing about art or lumpy gravey except they might be the same thing, if Tracey Emin was involved.
Yes Liana...that my opinion is as valid as anyone else's...thus the diversity rules OK!, and the "even talentless munsters like Emin have a place...it would be a dreary world indeed without any art good or bad".
We don't all have to have the same views! (and I still think Emin is shite!)
*sips..erm..coffee and gently slips downstairs for a spot of trout fishing*
[%sig%]
Flash, please don't deny me..not after last night...
*purrrrrrrssssss and sips a little of Granny's medication then goes back to trout fishing*
Ta Ta for tonight dear friends!
[%sig%]
That's not fair Liana!...my mother told me to wear those glasses...and the clothes...well, it was the 80's!
*mortally wounded, sobs in fruit cake slice and goes back to trout fishing, misty eyed and singing the blues (Spitting Image Star-Trekking song actually...fresh out of Billie Holiday)*
[%sig%]
'Referring back to my original point, I would rather let the work speak for itself and not rely on trite existential blurbs telling us about it and tryng to explain it...I simply refuse to read them. Let the piece speak and the artist forever hold their peace.'
It's difficult to understand some things without a context though. The guy you mentioned earlier who destroyed all his possessions. That wouldn't have meant the same thing if no-one understood that it was one person's possessions. If the pieces being destroyed could have belonged to anyone and were being destroyed for any or no reason then it would have seemed senseless. It's knowing the context which makes a difference.
You say Tracy Emin has no skill or insight. I can't see how it makes sense to say that and to also claim that she engineered her fame. Presumably that takes a certain amount of insight.
Flashy - Ah, but you have the hidden elastic trick...and if she gets too feisty I can always join and save your lovely ****. By the way...how is your right buttock, has it recovered yet?
[%sig%]
No kevin, orchestrating fame requires being surrounded by others with insight and connections to the media. Emin isn't insightful but she's clever in her self-publicising.
So, does all art require a context? Is it meaningless without it? Sorry, i have to disagree. The guy destroying his things was not senseless to those watching whether they knew it was one persons things or all of theirs. Passports, photos, clothing, all the documents and pieces of paper that plague us our whole lives...I only knew they all belonged to one person when i saw the news on TV, when I was there, shopping bags in hand, it didn't matter.
For me, and this is only my opinion, art has to have a voice of its own, not an explanationally garb next to it to give it impact or context.
Bacon's work, Gottliebs, even some Chapman's must speak to me through the work...knowing the context is for the artist but it is not or shouln't neccessary for the viewer if they really open themselves up to the work.
It's down to the old adage of quietening the brain, all those constant buzzy thoughts and allowing yourself to respond honestly to what's in front of you. Feel it first, then think/intellectualise..but emotion has to be the key.
****, I'm sorry, I'm really ranting today...too much erm...coffee..
[%sig%]
Well I think you're right about Tracy Emin and that she is clever in some respects.
You say that context does not come into it and then immediately place your appreciation of an event in the context of: 'Passports, photos, clothing, all the documents and pieces of paper that plague us our whole lives'
It's difficult for me to see how you can say both things and mean it.
Hen, here's the rub...you make no sense. You call me tyrannical for having an opinion, my own opinion, which as we live in a so called 'democracy' I am entitled to have, as you are entitled to have your opinions. The person being tyrannical here is you. You cannot dictate to someone else that they cannot have an opinion! nor can you dictate that some peoples opinions are more justified or valid than others!!
As for your other comment...eh? Unless someone else is living in my head or in yours, of course our own personal opinions are going to be the most important to us, and of course we have our own interpretations of the world and how we view it. Are you ruled by someone else in your head telling you to think about things their way? (maybe you hear multiple voices that crowd out your own and being the diplomat you want to give them all a fair crack of your mind...so one tells you to jump off a bridge, the other tells you to paint it...etc what do you do?).
Everyone has their own truth, not THE truth (whatever that is), but what is personally true for them, their own opinions and views of the world...thats being human, it only becomes tyrannical if that person dictates that all others should adhere to them. "Lets agree to disagree" I wouldn't want to dictate to or brainwash people into believing the same things as me even if I could...what a dreary world that would be.
Hen, I don't understand you at all. If we cannot be rulers of our own minds and have our own opinions then what are we?
And I say again..assumption, assumption...who said I don't let in others opinions?, you are dictating that about me...Maybe you're talking about yourself, but you cannot dictate or assume such a position about a stranger you know nothing about just because I happen to have a firm opinion on this one subject.
On that point, I'm off to whip some grey cells into submission and if they don't do as I say, I'll set my little mitochondria minions on them!
[%sig%]
Rant over...this thread has now frayed a little. As I said...art is subjective, everyone has a different opinion, that's life.
*becomes philosophical after having spent three days trout fishing in living room with J.R.Hartley...quite an existential old age that one...*
[%sig%]
Hey Golum, er I mean Tollam (sorry I seem to have your brother on the mind for some reason) must be those pesky movies full of stumpy little uglyducks trying to leave a mark on the real world. You do come across as a little on the pompous, arrogant side. Are you sure you're sufficiently qualified to foist your opinions on the rest of us?
Sorry Tollam... but your brain is a contextual apparatus.
Context is everything... context is the true art form
Of course... there is informed and ill-informed context.
I am a fan of Trace. It's true that she seeks the limelight but that doesnt make her any less of an artist. People used this criticism about Warhol and still do but I think that's a loada shite. Creative people sometimes like to party.
There are some artists whose work grows on you the more you see it, as you build up a composite picture about them, they are living art. Gilbert and George describe themselves as that and who am I to disagree. And there are some artists who are masters of their media and concentate on the technical and craft aspect as well as the conceptual. The latter have more appeal to the non-artist, and this doesn't lessen their talent in any way. I am just saying vive le difference !
As my other half is an artist of the modern variety we constantly get this question.
After hours spent debating with people who've already made up their minds about 'modern' art I'm not sure I can be bothered any more.
My final answer is this: Go the Bienale in Venice, spend the three days it takes to wander round it all. I guarantee that you will be completely energised by some of it, disgusted by some of it, bored by a fair bit of it and just plain puzzled at times. Whatever.
Afterwards you will remember much of it, you will have had your little grey cells given a thorough work-out and you will see the world differently.
Good, bad or indifferent - art gives you a different perspective and finally the quality of that is in the eye/ear/nose/fingers/tastebuds of the beholder.
Either look at it with an open heart or don't bother. It's only your loss.
Good post tony..
and tollam, your comment about mature students not needing to have talent to attend a course because colleges need a certain quota of them, is balls I am afraid... it is more difficult to get onto a course when you are a mature student... you have to prove your talent ten times over.. and being ballsy and being able to "talk the talk" (UGH) may help get you in, but it wont allow you to remain there without talent...
Strong opinions loosely held... I do like that phrase. The essence of aquiring knowledge is that one should be prepared to ditch whatever one believes in, at short notice if need be... in essence to reinvent oneself. It can be very painful to choose this mode of existence.
As for you George, it is typical yet shameful that your contribution to a lenghty and passionate discussion here should be a one line mindless personal insult... (My opinion only of course)
Art is revolutionary - about sparking cultural and spiritual turmoil. You can feel something is art - you cannot define it nor can you have the law laid down for you on such a matter.
Tollam - I took you for a bloke! (It's me, Waldemar). Stop banging on about mudwrestling Liana - I'm having palpitations.
This thread reminds me of this poem by Kipling
WHEN the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
Wherefore he called to his wife and fled to fashion his work anew—
The first of his race who cared a fig for the first, most dread review;
And he left his lore to the use of his sons—and that was a glorious gain
When the Devil chuckled: "Is it Art?" in the ear of the branded Cain.
They builded a tower to shiver the sky and wrench the stars apart,
Till the Devil grunted behind the bricks: "It's striking, but is it Art?"
The stone was dropped by the quarry-side, and the idle derrick swung,
While each man talked of the aims of art, and each in an alien tongue.
They fought and they talked in the north and the south, they talked and they fought in the west,
Till the waters rose on the jabbering land, and the poor Red Clay had rest—
Had rest till the dank blank-canvas dawn when the dove was preened to start, 15
And the Devil bubbled below the keel: "It's human, but is it Art?"
The tale is old as the Eden Tree—as new as the new-cut tooth—
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it Art?"
We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yolk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, as the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it Art?"
When the flicker of London's sun falls faint on the club-room's green and gold, 25
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mold—
They scratch with their pens in the mold of their graves, and the ink and the anguish start
When the Devil mutters behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it art?"
Now, if we could win to the Eden Tree where the four great rivers flow,
And the wreath of Eve is red on the turf as she left it long ago,
And if we could come when the sentry slept, and softly scurry through,
By the favor of God we might know as much—as our father Adam knew.
"WHEN the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,"
LOL I can't get this line out of my head now.
I know it isn't, but I keep thinking of 'Eden's green and gold' as cockney rhyming slang.
Like "unfortunately I cannot attend today's meeting as I've got a streaming eden's green"
or "fackin hell your new bird's a bit eden's green isnt she?"
Oh dear..where to start..I've got to be quick now, turkey in the oven...
Kevin, I was talking about feeling that you HAVE to read the explanations by the side of a piece. I don't. I say again, I want the piece to speak to me, that's what is most important...how I interact with it, how it stirs my emotions. The passports etc Kevin was something i observed/discovered for myself in the piece..I wasn't directed to them, I didn't read about them.
I didn't say (llegspider as well) that context was irrelevant, but i don't think it should be EVERYTHING! I don't think it should be neccessary that a viewer understand every tiny facet of a piece in order to be able to respond to it. Neither do I trawl through the additives on a food packet to decide or know how I'm going to respond to it. Life should have some spontaneity to it, some non-sterile way of responding to something on an emotional, intellectual, visual, audio, viscereal level. If you want the artist to spout off at you in order to appreciate a piece then fine...I don't, I'd like to find/make my own connection to it...So I choose not to read the garbs as many others do. We've played the game and are trying it another probably more unpopular way.
Liana, we are going to have to wrestle again with a comment like that! You can't be that naive! I merely stated that it is possible to do a BA MA without talent. If you honestly think that every student across the land who is doing a BA MA is choc full of talent and is not pissing their education away, blagging it, coasting it etc then you really are a better person than me. My point is, that every college/university is different and their system of admissions is different and arbitrary. As I have been both a 'first' time student and a 'mature' (immature really) student I have seen both systems at work, and though many of my peers were very dedicated and talented, there were also quite a few who were not, who were drifting, or 'talking the talk' with very little work to back it up. Yes, some were found out and booted off the course, many were not, especially if the lecturers were not on the case.
My point is...that doing a BA MA does not automatically mean you have talent....I say again...self taught types...aka Anthony Gormley, and many other practising artists who have been through the system do not neccessarily think it is the best course to take. Schnabel, Bacon, even Freud etc etc.
Freda, well put and very diplomatic of you...vive la difference! (I still don't rate Emin though)
Philip, yes *looks down at large protrusions* I am girl last time I looked. Good to hear from you again, how is 'Diamond Sea' going?
Great post Tony....that's what I mean about connecting to a piece. Even (in my opinion) talentless munsters like Emin have a place (at the back next to the fish counter), but it would be a dreary world indeed without any art good or bad. Enough said, I'm off to do me' gravy.
[%sig%]
It wasn't meant to be an insult Gerry, just the truth as I see it. It also wasn't 'mindless', I did actually think about it. I don't apologise for the remark which I posted under my own name, which is more than can be said for the troll who had a go at RGH on another forum a week or two back.
Yes i like that phrase too.. strong opinions loosely held... as i get older i try to hold mine even more loosely. The problem i had mainly with your posts Tollam, was your endless repetition that tracy emin is shite... it is really just your opinion... you said on another thread that i was obviously in love with emin... which made me smile, as nowhere on this or that thread have i said that i particularly like her work... i have said that i believed she had talent, is all... and that other people have the right to admire her work without being scoffed at as just being trendy of the momentists... as is my right. You also said that i should take my jackboots off... which is curious really, as i never insist that others agree with me, nor that my opions are more valid than theirs because of x y or z reason... hence i dont feel the need to say the same thing over and over in each post when i have already stated it. You dont rate emin - thats fine... some others perhaps do - as freda does. It therefore means that what she produces IS art, because she feels it is, and so does the viewer (ie freda)
I am mainly just thankful that artists like emin exist because there would be no pushing of the boundaries if we all had whimsical little paintings and sculptures because that was all that was allowed to be considered as art.
Now that my will to live has finally come back (although temporarily lost for 30 mins at an execrable nativity play last night for 30 minutes) I shant post on this thread again lest it drains away again.
And no, i dont want to talk about mud wrestling or gold lame bikinis.
Its just soooo last week...
;o)
"In expressing an opinion I am not making any declarations that others are forced to adhere to and suggesting otherwise is "absolute piddle" + I was not trying to justify my feelings, I don't need to, unless we are now living under totalitarian rule. Forget assumed "window dressing" Hen, how is it now "tyrannical and arrogant" to have an opinion??"
I have a zealous way of putting things. By "absolute piddle", I meant that it was easy, not rubbish. True, you are entitled to your opinion, but here's the rub - what is 'tyrannical' is to assume that your opinion is as justified as someone else's, simply because we are all permitted to have one. It's 'tyrannical' because in your own interpretation of the world, your own opinion is the only true one - you do not let in others. You alone rule - you are the tyrant who decides what is and what is not art.
You might say, "That's a very strong way of putting it, and anyway, what's the alternative?" The alternative, as I see it, is to allow yourself to consider as art things that do not succumb to your opinion of what art should be. To think, in this case, "OK, other people think Emin's art, so I'll say for the moment that she might be. I'll try approaching her work as art, despite my reservations." Rather than, "Tracy Emin isn't art. Since this is my opinion, which I am entitled to, I refuse to look at Emin as art."
There was an excellent phrase used a few months ago on this site to describe what I would consider an 'untyrannical' mind - that is "strong opinions loosely held." The idea that you're prepared to change your opinion at any point - that you're only waiting for its downfall. Even better would be to hold multiple opinions on a single matter, to see all the sides of the coin.
Granted, this is a hard thing to do, and there are limits for all of us. For me, I just can't consider the pop charts seriously - as any kind of art or worthwhile activity. And yeah, it annoys me when people do, because I disagree with them. But this is really my own limitation.
As for the rest of the discussion:
Personally, I'm not sure of the point of a debate over 'what is art' or 'what is good art'. I mean, we can all vote with our feet, so to speak. I'll discuss what work I think is important, what I think is worth discussing - hence, I approach it as art, and I make my case. It seems we should ignore the rest, since it will only irritate us, and we'll only end up pissing on other people's parade. I'd go so far as to suggest it's over-stating one's liberal rights to tell other people, "You shouldn't be taking this seriously. You should ignore it."
Then again, I guess we all do it.
Hello Sabelle, a lot of opinion these days says that it is pointless anymore to ask the question. When you read the thread below about Ozzy Osbourne it kind of highlights why I think.
My favourite quote about what is Art comes from Gombrich's marvellous book about Art. Even though it was written in 1950 plenty in it still reads as fresh and worthwhile today. Another thing I like a lot - and which is very different from how we do things now, is that he says plenty, educates and entertains without denigrating, belittling or mocking as he does so. Absolutely marvellous. Anyway, the quote from Gombrich is:
"There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists. Once these were men who took coloured earth and roughed out the forms of a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy their paints, and design posters for the hoardings; they did and do many other things. There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence. For Art with a capital A has come to be something of a bogey and a fetish."
Tollam
This mudwrestling thing - I can't get it out of my head - thanks a bunch! Is it over? Who won?
'The Diamond Sea' has ground pretty much to a halt - what there is of it is on UK Authors in rough/note form. I don't really know where I'm going with this writing thing - it just doesn't feel right at the moment. I'm thinking of becoming a teacher, which might kill it off competely.
I'm finding it difficult to get inspiration. Recently I've only written a little bit of flash fiction for that 'Zuluspice' competition, my diary and a bit of porn - (don't tell my mum will you) It's all on UK Authors - tell me what you think.
How about you? How's your novel going?
Something is Art if you the artist declare that it is Art.
For my money though there must be some kind of skill or craft involved - i.e. it must involve some kind of learning/apprenticeship/hard slog before it can be Art with a capital A. However, that doesn't hold true for lots of people nowadays.
Pages