I've written as much about Rothko. A few times actually. One cannot properly enjoy a Rothko as a reproduction in a book. You must meditate with the paintings in their environment. And yes, you do "feel things." And what you feel goes beyond an eye-brain reaction to certain color fields and compositional proportions. What you feel is a genuine spiritual presence.

Going back to the topic, one way to look at the whole writing thing is as follows. The Surrealists and the Abstract Expressionists who came after employed much automatic writing. Simply stated, the major problem many artists, critics and instructors have with "writing on canvas" is precisely that it is literal writing and thus sets up a narrative context for the work going beyond just the work's title.

Nefeli:- Maybe I need to modify my statement to read 'Art does not always need an audience'

Atari:- As for Rothko, whilst I don't doubt that the feelings you and Nefeli have when confronted with his work 'in the flesh' are genuine, personally they do absolutely nothing for me.
But as I said in a previous post, my opinion is just that, my opinion. It is irrelevant when it comes to deciding what is 'good' art and what is not.

This is why tossers like Sewell and his ilk piss me off. They seem to think that their opinion is more valid than yours or mine, but offer no valid reason why it should be.

on the other hand we should not discount the fact that some people have a natural flair for reading into and interpreting a work of art, and if they combine this with extensive learning of art history it is often interesting to hear their insights into a piece of work.

i think if it doesn't need an audience then it's not art.

Part of the problem with a lot of contemporary art is that art is now seen solely as a form of self expression. This is a relatively recent turn and forgets a great tradition of art as observation. The tragedy of the self-expression route is that it's caused artists to concentrate on feeling, rather than looking.

for real, art isn't therapy. although some how it has come to be seen as that. i blame edvard munch and jackson pollock.

That's why I find artists like Tracey Emin so dull. They merely reflect a public fascination with the artist as some kind of outsider, which ultimately feeds back into art schools and students that treat their work as a form of confession. That most of these students have very little of interest worth confessing anyway, doesn't help matters.

on the subject of making work about one's self, my tutor at st. martin's tried to get this black guy in our tutor group to stop making the work he was making, and start makingwork about being black! in this day and age, can you believe it?! he didn't take her advice.

Edit: I strongly believe that the artist should never be concerned or even think about the publics opinion when it's finally presented to them at a gallery.
If they create art with that in mind, it isn't art.

It's not so much the that they merely reflect the public's fascination with the artist as some kind of outsider, that is the natural reaction of a public that is constantly subjected to the egoistic manifestations of said 'artist' on a regular basis.

Edit - Demonrail

yeah, but artist's need to ask themselves if the work they are showing is worth being shown to the public, and if they are showing to public for selfish reasons (not including getting paid)

[sarram]True, but she seems to have captured the public's imagination - nonetheless.

The fact that more people know about Van Gogh's ear than have seen his work, about Beethoven's deafness than have heard his symphonies, etc., etc., speaks volumes about a society that equates talent with emotional or physical turmoil.

I don't get what you mean by worth? As in quality?
If so, then the question we should ask ourselves is: What is a good example of quality art?

That is a technical thing, though. Let's not forget that she is a regular on many a gossip column that have little to do with art, and are mainly read by people who care little about it. ES magazine, which is given away with the Evening Standard every Friday, has very often pictures of La Emin partying like it's still 1999 on it. That's how a lot of people get to know who she is, even not knowing, perhaps, what her arty garbage looks like.

Well, Florya, you didn't meditate with
the paintings. "Meditate" was the operative word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swa(y)
the only real think i ever learned from the art classes i have taken is that art can not, and should not, be taught in a structured environment. some asshole teacher telling me "you need to change this, put something in the background, too much negative space" < what fucking right does he have to tell me how to express myself? NONE.


It's funny to me how swa(y) (and others like him) love to reference a
"judge not lest ye be judged"
Christian sentiment whenever they
feel it suits their agenda. It's funny because they usually write from a point of view that's diametrically the opposite. The teacher was merely trying to teach, swa(y). That's why there was a class and that's presumably why you attended it. Chances are, there were some things to learn from that teacher and some things to react against. So calm the fuck down, you impious fuck.


Yes, of course, and as a person of reasonable intelligence like yourself, that's what I also wrote that ridiculous time that swa(y) claimed I lost an argument. Some are just interjecting their baggage into the whole thing a little more than others.

a case in point: (baggage)

So you see the artist as more of a craftsperson than a shaman? I'm not sure I follow. The Abstract Expressionists responded to the atomic age by painting what was within and shifting focus to an inner observer. The Post-Expressionists and Pop Artists explored what was outside again utilizing much of what the AbExers had taught them aesthetically and also as a reaction.

But it was not the simple act of "expressing oneself freely" that canonized many AbEx works. It is the unconscious universal resonance that such inner explorations, carried out in the spirit of artistic truth, have with the viewer that made those works significant and important works of art.
What we see with far too much conceptual and performance are today is that it is not carried out in this same spirit of artistic integrity. These works are merely presented with outsider-posturing as confrontationally as possible to provoke a base reaction for shock value. And these works are far more kitschy caca than Dada; as Rob stated early on, they are just plain "bad art." Art-as-formula is never a good thing. The media coverage of the art world has the propensity to act as a negative influence for this very reason. In many cases, even good artists tend to become formulaic caricatures ofthemsleves over time as their work becomes branded to a certain type by the media and critics.

Let's take into consideration the fact that art should move with the times, not against them, shall we? Tokolosh, my man, you still haven't made a single point of interest about anything on this thread, apart from the usual smug antagonism of yore. What I mean by serious point, is one that you can express and defend all by yourself, if you get what I mean, which I doubt you do.

That's your problem. Piss off!

Oh, c'mon Tokolosh! Look what I have for you. Sniff.

What about me? :) Isn't someone going to "call the nurse" or "guess my medication" or something?

I accept that this is your opinion, but disagree with it in the strongest possible terms.

No they don't. All they have is their own personal opinion based on their individual perception. That's all anyone has. The only people that think they have this 'natural flair' are themselves, and that's an ego thing.

A room full of Rothko's is the last place that I would choose to meditate. :)

That's simply not true. A person who has studied the history of art is likely to have more to say about the value of a piece of art than someone who isn't aware of the traditions, influences and various other contexts that have helped make the artwork what it is. Equally, a practitioner might have a greater (and thus more valuable) insight into the processes passed in achieving the work. Knowledge can fuel the ego, but they aren't the same thing.

That's bollocks.
The history of art is irrelevant. An art historian knows no more about how 'good' or 'bad' an artwork is than you or I.
The only person that knows the traditions, influences and contexts that went into a work of art is the artist. Any thing else is just supposition and guesswork.

actually that is completely wrong. during my foundation year at art school i did a project that involved me giving my camera to friends from outside college for a day and having them take pictures with it of whatever they wanted (i don't think anyone took a picture of themself) i then showed the pictures each individual had taken to my classmates and asked them to describe what they imagined the photographer to be like, there were 3 people in my class of 40 who were consistently able to read into the pictures and give uncannily accurate and indepth estimation of the photographer's personality and life, there were other individuals who were completely incapable of making any kind of guesses as to what that person might be like. none of my classmates had met any of my friends outside of school at that point so there was no chance of them "cheating".

my own ability to interprate the work of others is a product of attending art school and not something i can do very well anyway, i don't have this natural ability to read art, others do, end of story.

Because of the difficulty in judging quality on a purely formal basis (and i don't agree with the idea of a universally great piece of art anyway), the strongest method is to judge work in relation to its place within the history of art. If an artist in 2007 comes out of their studio with a bunch of silkscreens of Marilyn Monroe, and everyone's telling him or her how great they are, then an art historian is gonna be very relevant when they say, 'yeah, sure, but...'

A good read for anyone thinking about making a living as an artist.

Good Art = Business Art

Sorry, but you are talking loads of nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned, an artist should isolate him/herself in their studio and concentrate purely on their work. Nothing else.
Speculating about what the audience might/might not think of it afterwards, shouldn't even cross their minds.
This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway. You might be a brilliant painter, whatever-- If you can't promote yourself as an artist, your work will never see the light of day. Stop dreaming. If you don't at least have some sort of reputation, respect or close friends in the art world, you're doomed. End of story.

Getting back to Emin. She might be a crap artist to some, but she obviously knows how the art world operates and who she should and shouldn't mingle with. Her work lands up in important galleries, and gets sold. :)

At last!! Something I can agree with!



Doomed? Surely that depends on the motivation of the artist?

Sure.

Oooh! Spooky! Could they also bend spoons with the power of their brains?

Why do you feel the need to interprate the work of others? What purpose does it serve? What makes you think that it's any of your business?

If you want to know the 'meaning' behind a work of art, ask the artist, not Brian Sewell.
"Ah, but what if the artist is dead?" I hear you cry.
Well in that case, you're stuffed. Unless the artist took the time to write down his motivation, emotions and life experiences relevant to each and every work he produced, you should accept that you will never know what they were.

And anyone who purports to know, for certain, the reasons why an artist produces a specific artwork without that information is a charlatan.

So I assume that you have never read any books about 'outsider art', or have you?

Yes. That's exactly what I was refering to. And?

What the Hell are you talking about?!
And yes, I do know what outsider art is!

Outsider artists still manage to make a living without playing the conventional gallery game. There you go. And?

Eh?

A little anedocte porky-style to explain why thinking that everything can be considered art is damaging to both the artist,the public and the student:


When I did volunteering as a music therapist, I used to also occasionally help out the patients with the artwork that was assigned by the person who was in charge of the visual side of things. Said person would make these human beings produce the worst artwork that you could possibly imagine, in the patronizing belief that they weren't capable of producing better things that would also boost their morale and confidence. Said person lacked in both technique, ideas and simple experience in improving the artistic skills of the patients whenever it was possible, which generally resulted in some of the worst drawings and sculpture that I have ever seen. Said person had also had very high opinion of themselves, which meant that they couldn't objectively judge the potential of a patient for producing some interesting work. Said person generally thought that a few scribbles on paper were the highest artistic achievement that they could get out of a potentially talented patient because, you know, everything is 'art'.

Sure there are artists who focus on what their public will think, and use that to their advantage. I just don't think it's nessessary to always approach it in that way. I'd also like to add that you'll need some recognition for that to work.


That second bit of my post has nothing to do with the first part. What I meant to say is that there's no point in counting your chickens before they hatch. To get respect in the art world, you have to first work very hard and befriend the right people. Part of being a good artist is having the ability to convince an art collector to purchase the work. Let the buyer(gallery) decide who views it.

Same difference actually.