Art critic

"I have been to the Tate Mod and only have their title of the building to suppose these pieces are art."

Monet's Waterlillies?

If you're determined not to like something, then you won't. Some of it takes effort on the part of the viewer, and time. Do you dismiss music if the first listening doesn't satisfy, or not read the rest of a book if the first chapter is hard work?

Like David, I have spent many hours in the Rothko room - the whole of which the artist designed in conjunction with the gallery - and it is a near-spiritual experience.

Almost by definition most of here pay vast sums to achieve the reproduction of music as closely as possible to the way the musicians intended. Yet, as a nation, we have one of the finest collections of art in the world, and we are priviledged to be able to see real thing rather than just reproductions of it.

It's a gallery, and like someone else's record collection, there will always be things we don't "like". For anyone not to be able to find something of personal merit I find astonishing.

I was being extra facetious about my visit to the TMod.It was a short visit I enjoyed quite a lot of what I saw. Conversely a lot of it piles of bricks, glass of water on shelf(done that) and several canvases of different shades of brown left me laughing. I would not know a Rothko from a hole in the ground. As I said only a short visit,I may have seen his/her work but it obviously didn't make an impression.
I am predisposed to dislike it but certain items do register. I like some Dali, Piccasso(not his cars) and like classical loads of pictures I would not have a clue who thay were by.
I am 57 and have managed without a great appreciation of art maybe I will start to mellow now. My musical tastes are being broadened by this forum so all is not lost if thats how you see it. I would prefer we stick to music though. If I want art I'll go to an art forum thanks.

Howard

Oh dear.

I fear that "several canvases of different shades of brown" is not far off a perfectly factual description of Mark Rothko's oeuvre...

Well you can't win 'em all

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigH47:
I would prefer we stick to music though. If I want art I'll go to an art forum thanks.

---

So why did you start the thread.

Now if you want music and art we could discuss opera, especially those based on Shakespeare plays

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

Thanks Tom nothing gets passed you eh? Hoisted by my own petard started as a joke and went too far.
Those operas do they come with an arty cover?
Some research does in make it look like I did see the Rothko room. Obviously made some impression on me, not positive I fear.

Howard

Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet (I'm not an opera fan), with a decent red Burgundy to hand and, naturellement, a Rothko catalogue is my idea of bliss.

Thank heavens we are all different!

Rod

I think there is an element of subconcious reation in the way we form conclusion about the content of something presented to us as art.

If it appears naive and childlike in construction or shocking and crude we cannot avoid our ingrained reactions which are built into us as we grow towards maturity. We have an immediate automatic response that "this isn't art" because there appears no judgeable skill or intellect involved in it's production, by our own standrads and values.

I am as guilty as the next person of this reaction and cannot for the life of me get past that feeling to see some inner emotion or creative process in Damien H's or Tracy E's work and other forms of that ilke.

However I do accept that others may be able to see something of significance, as long as they in turn recognise that the more common reactions of most of us are just as valid as their personal appreciation of a "piece".

I am sure that Lowry's work when first displayed must have been viewed by a majority as childish and unskillfull. I could not see wahat all the fuss was about with Hockney's abstract art but when he started displaying paintings which were visually familar scenes containing recognizable objects and people Hockney's artistry became much more apparent to me.

For most myself include any allusion to the "shock of the new" is wasted because I am not about to change my whole framework of values which help me survive in this crazy world.

regards
GEOFF

Listening every day planning to "not fade away"

Works of art, however you perceive them, succeed by provoking a reaction in the first place. So, regardless of whether I might adore an example of what is constituted as art, or I absolutely loath it, the point is it has made an impact on me and therefore has achieved its objective. Otherwise what would be the point of it?

It also leaves me free to interpret it exactly as I wish, which does confer a kind of freedom around it which is refreshing.

I think what really gets my goat is being told this is art and you are stupid if you can't see it. Nobody hear saying that I hasten to add. If I like it it is art if I don't it ain't, thats the only way it makes any sense to me. I try to like various things some art opera etc but usually come back to the same conclusion, not for me.

Howard

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigH47:
I think what really gets my goat is being told this is art and you are stupid if you can't see it. Nobody hear saying that I hasten to add. If I like it it is art if I don't it ain't, thats the only way it makes any sense to me. I try to like various things some art opera etc but usually come back to the same conclusion, not for me.

Howard

---

Howard,

Well I hope you didn't think I was calling you "stupid" because I wasn't. You did start the thread, and you did ask, so, having studied Art History I thought I would have a go.

At its most basic level the definition of "Art" might be that which any one (or perhaps two) individual(s) consider to be so. "If I like it it is art if I don't it ain't" strikes me as more than a little bit Taliban-ish and ultimately self defeating. What about the "Art" (or not) that you have yet to see/hear/read? Isn't Charles Saatchi entitled to think the same thing?

As with music and literature, ultimately time will tell. There is, of course, mountains of nonsense being peddled around at the moment. Nothing new about this phenomenon. I suspect that I dislike it just as much as you do. Once time has passed, only the works that by common consensus are good will be worthy of attention, the rest will just fade away.

If you name a painter/artist from history whose works you do admire I could probably name five of their contemporaries who are now deservedly obscure. I could probably look up dozens more.

Tracy Emin I suspect may need to be one of the "looked up" in a century or so. Although Damian Hirst is actually an incredibly accomplished draughtsman and painter. He chooses to produce the material he does and has not been "forced" into it through lack of talent. How much this fact actually matters will, ultimately, also be decided by history.

As someone once said "wisdom is the acceptance that taste is subjective"

I do hope I haven't offended you nevertheless.

This was utterly detested when first publicly displayed. Surely no-one can deny its singular beauty, pathos, social comment and extraordinary quality today?

Rod

Rod
I wasn't saying anybody here was calling any one stupid. I was making the point that a lot of art suppoters say if you don't get it you must be stupid etc.I know what I like and like music certain genres are more difficult to "get" than others. Modern art is one of those.
I appreciate everybodies responses, the thread has gone further than I expected.

Howard