Writing on canvas
 

Should the practice of using exclusively words as a mean of representing something figurative be considered a work of art? Got into a discussion with someone I know about this, and he should know better because he works in the art world and reports back to the government about it. Anyway, it all started because he has this canvas in his living room that simply says: 'Reject The Mother'. That to me is not art at all, but he reckons that it is, and simply because it can be when heavily contexualized, like he says. I don't fucking think so, leave the writing to the writers, or at least incorporate it into something that has visual qualities, rather than a nice display of one's calligraphy.

Well, I guess in a sense it could be art, but personally it sounds like a very poor piece of work. Really, most conceptual artists should have their bottoms spanked and then forced to serve me pints at the King's Arms.

I dunno, Words on a canvus can be quite striking sometimes. Some of Yoko Ono's stuff comes to mind. Although 'Reject The Mother' hardly sounds insightful

People always argue whether or not something is Art. I think The question is: Is it good Art?

Words everywhere, on a wall, on the sidewalk, on an ad, on a piece of paper can be striking. That does not mean that those can be considered "art", but rather that, quite obviously, words have power.
IMO.

Yes but to argue whether something is art or not is a boring vicious circle. If we just accept it is art, then it allows us to debate whether the said piece is good or bad.

It's not a boring vicious circle. If there weren't people whose thought resisted all the crap that gets called art (cooking, anyone??), we would start thinking that farts can be considered as such..........and probably someone has found an excuse to call them art already!

Yes, I understand what you mean. this applies to almost every aspect/ "type" of contemporary and modern art in general, actually, debating wheter some "pieces" are art or not is usually pointless, as long as something gives me some kind of emotion/feeling/reaction I'm happy. My "taste" will be quite stressed when I'll go to the Biennale in venice, I suppose...

more than a "boring vicious circle" I think it is just a discussion that relies too much on personal tastes, I guess. Eventually I think that "real" art will stand the test of time, while crap "artsy" things will just be forgotten. Hopefully.

haha yeah but I just accept everything is art. In so far as everything is an expression of something. A fart could very well be art, its certainly not good art and I wouldnt spend much brainpower on it.

Perhaps my position comes from being brought into debates by idiots who insist on decrying modern art, when their only point of reference is Tracey fucking Emin. For the sake of argument its just easier to accept its art.

Exactly. Thats how I feel...

There is a tendacy out of sheer outrage to give some works more publicity than they deserve.

works like this?

haha fuck horse, oh i agree

I do not like art pieces that are just text. Leave that to poems and books and plays and such. I want my art to be something other than language.
I find that using words in art pieces makes things too specific, even if you have the words hidden or the words are not the m,ain visual cruz of it. words are loade symbols, like guns, crosses, lips, etc. they are easy and detract from deeper meaning.

FUCKHORSE

OH MY FUCK!! that's brilliant.

I agree with that. Sometimes I think that some artists use words in their work because the images are weak and are not expressing much. In saying that, graphic design makes brilliant use of words, when there is talent behind it.

art or not?

alot of really boring pseudo conceptual art uses text on canvas and to me, most of it looks half-assed and hackneyed. there are many exceptions, however, eg. Joan Miro's "Une Étoile caresse le sein d'une négresse" springs to mind most immediately.
it's interesting though to examine whether words are effective for what they bring to the piece asthetically, or what they contribute conceptually. it's also interesting when the characters are in a language foreign to a viewer, for example, japanese/chinese brush calligraphy. these have nowdays become so popular, with people purchasing prints for their walls etc... it forces the audience to focus solely on the visual qualities of the words.
interesting to speculate what outweighs what... i'm not sure about it myself.

Barbar kruger uses graphic imagery and graphic typesetting to create her artworks. I consider them art, because she strives to have a balance sometimes between imagery and text but it is all very conceptual. I mean, do you want to look at a barbara kruger art piece hanging in your house every day?

a good example of language in a work of art is renee magrittes

Leci N'est pas une pipe




(This is not a pipe)

It is at the Menil Colection in Houston TX

haha rob
i was just about to post that image, that is one of my favourite paintings
but i was looking for his other paintings of oblong shapes with writing in them.

That "Fuck Horse" thing reminds me of my friend Eddie's stuff. I'm gonna go look for his stuff...


He's removed some of his older stuff, I remember there was one that said "You can lead a horse to water, but can you make him think?"

Multimedia isn't art?

Literature isn't art?

pbradley, in this case NO

literature is literature. you have to READ it to experience it. you camnnot [put a book on the wall and say "This is moby dick! what great art!" you ahve to REAd moby dick, and it matters not whether it is in book form, in pamphlets, written on the floor in crayon, or on a computer screen.

it is AN art form, but when discussing ART, it is generally acceopted that one is discussing visual art.

muyltimedia is a load of shit BTW. if it is a sculpture it is a sculpture whether it shows images on screens or sounds from hidden speakers. multimedia is what loser fucking "artsy fucks" call what they make when they cannot figure out what it is.

ha!

in this case i think porkmarras is referring to visual art, as the title of the thread refers to "canvas"....

Including words (and to some extent, numerical and/or alphabetical characters in general) on the picture plane usually disqualifies a work as art, effectively relegating it to artifice or illustration; in short, it's a tough rule of aesthetics to break successfully.
By large, Toulouse-Lautrec, Picasso, Warhol, Rauschenberg, and Johns, are some artists that could bring it off, and Jean-Michel Basquiat may be one of the last to do so with any real artistic significance. Although there have been and always will be wonderful folk artists that play art well with words and characters.
It's my feeling that the majority of fine art instructors discourage the practice, unless collage or the like is the specific focus, I suppose.

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. If the words have absolutely no relevance to the central depiction or is the central depiction, I would not consider it visual art. Instead, it would be literature/poetry.

wow, I totally disagree.

do you study fine arts? if so, Im really surprised at this opinion...

I remember seeing an art documentary on PBS where Basquiat painted a mural, and I remember seeing him write "What does it mean to be avant garde?"
Thanks for reminding me what his name is. Does anyone know where I might find a picture of that particular mural?

Exactly.

That's very true, albeit on a covert level. Fine Art programmes are now desperately trying to compete with more commercially focused 'graphics' courses - leading to a certain level of purism. There's a definite (if rarely explicitely articulated) backlash going on within universty fine art programmes towards that whole breaking down of distinctions between purely gallery based art and that designed solely for the commercial sector. Which isn't to say that galleries aren't in themselves 'commercial', but you know what I mean.

The divide has far more to do with inter-school politics, than it does with aesthetics.

Agreed.
I'd like to add Jonathan Meese to that list.
The same goes for Peter Greenaway's work involving calligraphy.

What about this canvas by Ed Ruscha?

He was intending to create an image that in turn shouts out at the viewer, appealing impossibly to one of the senses that painting cannot reach.

Anyway, this is good avatar material.

i often write next to my drawings, does that make them void of being art?

I've never heard of any work being disqualified as art on those grounds. Are you talking about the 'common observer' or the art 'establishment'?

words in a visual artwork have to be dealt with as words. letters do too. They are symbols, and jasper johns was a great user of symbols. He did all sorts of encaustic alphabet paintings that are amazing and wonderful, and rauschenberg did aND basquiat but it takes someone with a real skill to pull it off and not be a "toss off" piece.

Jasper Johns GREY ALPHABET



PERISCOPE




5

Hanne Darboven's work is sublime! A perfect example of how to use writing as an artist. She's one of my favorites.




Hanne Darboven, Düsseldorf 1968


Gustav Stresemann posthum, 1998
Filzschreiber auf Pergament und Foto
32 Bögen je 60 x 40 cm



Hommage à Picasso (Detail), 1995-2006

You can read more about her here and here

Should the practice of using exclusively words as a mean of representing something figurative be considered a work of art?

No.

i agree

Really? Robert Indiana's ... Art or tripe?

Those are sculptured letters, and no, they aren't art to me.