One of his first versions was a painting you know? Nevermind.

I think it all boils down to aesthetics.

What's that meant to mean? I think I've pretty much made it clear with my first post about what my thoughts on such 'paintings' are. Explain to me what's artistic about that, then.

The concept behind LOVE and other paintings is far more important to me than what I see on the canvas. I don't think I have to tell you this, LOVE was conceived at a time when the United States was consumed by the war in Vietnam. It became a symbol for peace.
I won't go into detail, but Indiana originally got the idea from a banner he saw at a church saying "God is Love" and applied it to the time and situation America was in. It's not just 4 painted letters.

Anyway, I can only speak for myself, and I judge an art piece by it's underlying statement and what it's trying to say.
Well, most of the times.

Do people read my posts or do they just respond to them while sleepwalking?

How rude! Can you at least start off by saying good morning?



What's so artistic about that? The reason for making it in the first place. There I said it!

The problem is that a lot of people want to be spoonfed when looking at art. They're not prepared to take the time to think about the work they're looking at, and why the artist made it. It has to explain itself right there and then. If they can't see what the reason was for making it, it isn't art. Normally it ends with " Anyone can do that" before walking off to criticize the next artwork.
I've heard many people saying the same things about Warhol's Brillo, as you've said about Indiana's LOVE.

Ps: Good morning porky pigy wigy! :)

Good morning, shoe sniffer.


You're pretty much arguing the point that lazy artists make to defend themselves from accusations of being useless. I'm coming from the point of view a person who actually analizes art microscopically, so there. No spoonfeeding for me, thanks. Using simple words to spell out an artistic feeling means that you don't have the ability or the talent to paint powerful images that would say more indirectly but in a much more pleasurable way what words make more direct. We often forget, foot licker, that art is meant to be enjoyed and provoke positive thoughts, even you have to walk the darkest routes to do that.

Shoe sniffer no. Foot licker yes. Problem with that?

I agree that many artists hide behind their irrelevant crap art by making it look more important than it really is, but there are also people that use that as an excuse when they don't get it.
That's contradictive coming from someone who worships Warhol. What makes his Brillo piece (which is ONLY text on cardboard) art, and Indiana's piece crap? Please explain if you will, 'cause I'm loosing interest here.

As for art having to provoke "positive" thoughts. Where the hell did you get that from?
We're not talking about decorating a house with pretty things, so that everyone's happy.

And Robert Rauschenberg's "blank" canvases?

Next thing they"ll say is "My child can do that, and he's only 4 years old".
Fuck off!!!

Rauschenberg rules, by the way.

Do people read my posts or do they just respond to them by not responding?

I'm busy, smelly nike lover.

in my experience i would have said the opposite, i mean in regards to university tutors

yeah, but making art about art is lame

in some manner is about every other artwork that preceded it, and that was experienced by the artist.

well i don't really agree with that statement. anyway, i'm talking about when the dominant concern addressed in a piece of work is commenting on how art works, i find it dull.

Too true. One of the reasons that I've always despised a band like, say, LCD Soundsystem is exactly the fact that they made a career out of commenting about music, putting the emphasis much less on any emotional expression that should come from it, whatever that might be. Tokolosh, I'll get back to you about the Warhol thing that I knew you would bring up. In the meantime, lick my shoelaces.

that's why I don't like beck or lenny kravitz

Nevermind. There's nothing you can teach me about Warhol that I don't already know. :eek:
Isn't that shoelace incident getting as old as Clones cape stories already? Choke on it! :)

You wouldn't tell that you knew much about Warhol, unless you are secretly writing an earth-shaking book about him that I don't know about. You're right about the shoelace; It's about time you start to work your tongue upwards towards my knee.:)

Don't flatter yourself. My tongue deserves better than that.

No you're flattering me, bootface.

ART is art.
The word 'art' is art.
'Art' written on canvas is art. How can it be anything else?
It might be shit and pretentious and not in the least bit artisitic, but it must be art.

Agreed, but try explaining that to the WarholDiedForMySins expert.

That could easily be the motto for any lazy, unscrupulous artist who is out there trying to make a living out of poorly produced pieces of 'work'. One of the things that always struck me about Warhol is not so much a lot of his work itself, but more the cynical comment that someone who came from a commercial illustrative background made on the art world in general. Warhol himself declared his work to be rubbish a lot of the time, but it certainly didn't come across for quite sometime as the work of someone whose mind was rubbish at all, in fact he certainly was hated fervently by a lot of his contemporaries. The reason being that his work made pretty much a mockery of a lot of what was then being pretentiously being considered art.


To be continued................


P.S.: TOKOLOSH, try forming your own opinions on art, rather than just smugly keep on saying that you have some, awright babes?

ART!!!!

What's wrong with being lazy or unscrupulous? Warhol got away with it for years.
It's the work that counts.

'Poor production' is a matter of subjective opinion.

You make your art with the materials to hand - if you don't have hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of diamonds lying around waiting to be made into a glittery skull, so what? Use an unmade bed.

Art isn't about technique or materials - it's about artistic thought made whole. Whether it's a crudely carved piece of wood in the shape of an African Deity, a customised lowrider, a potato print, Picasso's 'Guernica' or the words of the Q'ran wrought in gold on the gates of a mosque - it's an expression of artistic thought made whole. Like it or not - it's art. Not 'good art' or 'bad art', there is no such thing, once again that is a subjective opinion. Art is what it is.

My friend David made a series of certain words and phrases on canvas when he was in art school, but they were made specifically to fuck with people during the peer critiques, which were always filled with people saying "Yaknow" and "It's cool" and other such enlightening insights. He painted the word "Cool" (and a few others) on a canvas in the typeface that was used in the early part of the 20th century for newspapers just for these special ties in class. He'd say, "OK, it's cool all right! What else you got?"
I sort of like that.
He only did that for a few paintings that had a specific purpose in mind though; he didn't make a career out of it.


Oh, and Jenny Holzer sucks.

Art is about talent, technique, craftsmanship, materials, thoughts, expression etc etc. Surely we can't start denying that, now. By the way, if it comes across as if I hate all contemporary art, that would be extremely wrong. I don't at all, but I have resentment for a lot of work that has become prominent in the media and possibly for how art is taught in a lot of schools.

Well, not all art schools are rubbish. A lot of them are, but not all of them.

Do people read my posts or do they just respond to them by not responding?

personally i dont mind writing on canvas, sometimes its good and sometimes bad but i can consider it art. why shouldnt i?

Somebody shoot this man:


Tom Kemp
There's something about writing. It worries me. It's definitely got something to hide. I've spent a long time making writing. Trying to find out what's so special about the fact that it has to be physically created. At the same time my ideas about what art is have changed a lot. It's something like art being what takes over from writing when we reach writing's limit. So now I'm stuck in the middle of both, attempting to piece together a coherent answer and only managing this by making art which is writing.




Red You : bottle, enamel, canvas : 120cm x 285cm

[quote=pbradley]I was getting at the fact that art in the greater sense transcends medium. In this sense, performance, canvas, tape... all irrelevant.

I would defend words used in visual art only if the words used elicit a greater or more specific meaning of the rest of the painting that the artist would like to convey but couldn't through ordinary means. quote]





Should you not use those words on some accompanying text to explain what is obviously not coming across from the finished product itself, then? The very fact that the visual aspect of the work you've produced can't sustain its own appeal by itself is enough to make it a severe case of weakness in the talent of the artist himself.

Not that I like the YOU piece, but you obviously don't have a clue about conceptual art.

conceptual art
n.
Art that is intended to convey an idea or concept to the perceiver and need not involve the creation or appreciation of a traditional art object such as a painting or sculpture.

Lick me. :)

Eh?

If you say so I believe you.

Wrong on 4 out of 6. Art has nothing to do with talent, technique, craftsmanship or materials.
It has everything to do with thought and expression.

The more I think about it, the more I think that we are arguing at cross purposes.

You seem to see art as the product, I see it as a state of mind.

Art doesn't require an audience, it is beyond praise or criticism because it is an insight into the mind of an individual, and no one (not even your beloved Brian Sewell) has the right to comment on the work unless it is to express their own, individual, aesthetic opinion on how the work affects them and them alone.

No one's opinion is any more or less valid than anyone elses when it comes to art because we are all unique and have our own unique perceptions, and these perceptions help to form our opinions.

If the artist is happy with the work, then the art is good. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Let Tom do the answering:

Tom Kemp
There's something about writing. It worries me. It's definitely got something to hide. I've spent a long time making writing. Trying to find out what's so special about the fact that it has to be physically created. At the same time my ideas about what art is have changed a lot. It's something like art being what takes over from writing when we reach writing's limit. So now I'm stuck in the middle of both, attempting to piece together a coherent answer and only managing this by making art which is writing.






Red You : bottle, enamel, canvas : 120cm x 285cm