Art Rant
Posted by: Deane F on 16 September 2005
I have been spending some time looking through the commercial galleries dotted about the town to which I have recently moved.
"Relentless mediocrity" is a term that springs to mind to describe nearly every single painting that I see. And the prices! Perhaps the artists have a simple formula - multiply the cost of the support and the medium by at least a factor of fifteen but preferably twenty?
The use of large areas of red in paintings is a cheap trick as well which I see a lot of in commercial galleries but which sells paintings - ask any gallery owner.
"Relentless mediocrity" is a term that springs to mind to describe nearly every single painting that I see. And the prices! Perhaps the artists have a simple formula - multiply the cost of the support and the medium by at least a factor of fifteen but preferably twenty?
The use of large areas of red in paintings is a cheap trick as well which I see a lot of in commercial galleries but which sells paintings - ask any gallery owner.
I have more than a few personal clichés to offer. 
An artist is someone who very obviously can draw or paint better than a non-artist. Anything else is just delusion.
Modern art is not art. It is a worthless commercial product looking for a deluded owner.
Nothing has value until someone wants it.
If you can borrow the money to open a gallery you can meet many deluded people quite effortlessly.
Art is the absolute prooof that time travels backwards.
Cave paintings leave modern art for dead. Both are done in the dark.
I know what I like... But it takes imagination, talent and skill well beyond the norm.
Art students are like many other students. But fewer of them have any real talent and almost all want an easy life.
Great artists aren't discovered. Their art was there all the time.
"Difficult art" doesn't exist. Except in the minds of the lazy, deluded dullards who produced it. And the lazy individuals who can make a quick buck out of it. The latter are far more important than the former since the former are completely disposable and just as easily forgotten.
Modern "art" is an oxymoron.
A modern "art" gallery is an oxymoron.
A "hidden" talent for art is an oxymoron.
Modern art could be produced in a factory by untrained chimps. And often is.
A modern artist is an unemployed person with a hobby.
Modern Art "experts" are experts only at self-delusion and deluding the naive. If they weren't doing this they would probably be involved in cult religion or UFO watching or futures markets.
Real art is easily recognisable by all who see it.
Recognising real art requires no coaching, no teaching, no classes, no lessons, no qualifications, no study, no experts and absolutely no special insight.
Recognising real art is not a gift. It is a normal human trait.
Nobody argues about real art. They are too busy admiring it.
Nobody needs to turn their head sideways to look at real art.
Many modern painters were also "scribblers" and "scrubbers" when they were little kids. Physical maturity brought no improvement in their skills, dexterity or hand-to-eye coordination. This may, or may not, affect their career.
A great artist doesn't need luck. He was born with it.
A complete myth can still lead to a successful career.
Frequent users of the word "philistine" should seek professional medical help.
An artist is someone who very obviously can draw or paint better than a non-artist. Anything else is just delusion.
Modern art is not art. It is a worthless commercial product looking for a deluded owner.
Nothing has value until someone wants it.
If you can borrow the money to open a gallery you can meet many deluded people quite effortlessly.
Art is the absolute prooof that time travels backwards.
Cave paintings leave modern art for dead. Both are done in the dark.
I know what I like... But it takes imagination, talent and skill well beyond the norm.
Art students are like many other students. But fewer of them have any real talent and almost all want an easy life.
Great artists aren't discovered. Their art was there all the time.
"Difficult art" doesn't exist. Except in the minds of the lazy, deluded dullards who produced it. And the lazy individuals who can make a quick buck out of it. The latter are far more important than the former since the former are completely disposable and just as easily forgotten.
Modern "art" is an oxymoron.
A modern "art" gallery is an oxymoron.
A "hidden" talent for art is an oxymoron.
Modern art could be produced in a factory by untrained chimps. And often is.
A modern artist is an unemployed person with a hobby.
Modern Art "experts" are experts only at self-delusion and deluding the naive. If they weren't doing this they would probably be involved in cult religion or UFO watching or futures markets.
Real art is easily recognisable by all who see it.
Recognising real art requires no coaching, no teaching, no classes, no lessons, no qualifications, no study, no experts and absolutely no special insight.
Recognising real art is not a gift. It is a normal human trait.
Nobody argues about real art. They are too busy admiring it.
Nobody needs to turn their head sideways to look at real art.
Many modern painters were also "scribblers" and "scrubbers" when they were little kids. Physical maturity brought no improvement in their skills, dexterity or hand-to-eye coordination. This may, or may not, affect their career.
A great artist doesn't need luck. He was born with it.
A complete myth can still lead to a successful career.
Frequent users of the word "philistine" should seek professional medical help.
If you aren't a draughtsman you have no right to claim you are an artist. Any more than a non-player can claim to be concert pianist. Or a motorist claiming to be a racing driver. When in fact he's only a taxi drover.
It is a matter of descriptive qualification by level of skill. Not an absolute. But close enough.
It is a matter of descriptive qualification by level of skill. Not an absolute. But close enough.
Troublemaker!
I'm talking about natural talent and basic manipulative skills.
I don't expect levitation from anything but a TV magician. But I do expect a conjurer to be able to handle cards with some dexterity.
By what right do artists claim to be so without the most basic levels of skill? Imagination is not enough. I can probably replicate almost anything these lazy arses can come up with.I can probably produce many more biizarre things at a whim. But I do not call myself an artist.
Applying the label to anybody and anything they produce demeans those who are real artists. It is a talent and skill I greatly admire and wish I had those gifts myself. To add to all my others.
I don't expect levitation from anything but a TV magician. But I do expect a conjurer to be able to handle cards with some dexterity.
By what right do artists claim to be so without the most basic levels of skill? Imagination is not enough. I can probably replicate almost anything these lazy arses can come up with.I can probably produce many more biizarre things at a whim. But I do not call myself an artist.
Applying the label to anybody and anything they produce demeans those who are real artists. It is a talent and skill I greatly admire and wish I had those gifts myself. To add to all my others.
quote:I have more than a few personal clichés to offer.
An artist is someone who very obviously can draw or paint better than a non-artist. Anything else is just delusion.
Modern art is not art. It is a worthless commercial product looking for a deluded owner.
Nothing has value until someone wants it.
If you can borrow the money to open a gallery you can meet many deluded people quite effortlessly.
Art is the absolute prooof that time travels backwards.
Cave paintings leave modern art for dead. Both are done in the dark.
I know what I like... But it takes imagination, talent and skill well beyond the norm.
Art students are like many other students. But fewer of them have any real talent and almost all want an easy life.
Great artists aren't discovered. Their art was there all the time.
"Difficult art" doesn't exist. Except in the minds of the lazy, deluded dullards who produced it. And the lazy individuals who can make a quick buck out of it. The latter are far more important than the former since the former are completely disposable and just as easily forgotten.
Modern "art" is an oxymoron.
A modern "art" gallery is an oxymoron.
A "hidden" talent for art is an oxymoron.
Modern art could be produced in a factory by untrained chimps. And often is.
A modern artist is an unemployed person with a hobby.
Modern Art "experts" are experts only at self-delusion and deluding the naive. If they weren't doing this they would probably be involved in cult religion or UFO watching or futures markets.
Real art is easily recognisable by all who see it.
Recognising real art requires no coaching, no teaching, no classes, no lessons, no qualifications, no study, no experts and absolutely no special insight.
Recognising real art is not a gift. It is a normal human trait.
Nobody argues about real art. They are too busy admiring it.
Nobody needs to turn their head sideways to look at real art.
Many modern painters were also "scribblers" and "scrubbers" when they were little kids. Physical maturity brought no improvement in their skills, dexterity or hand-to-eye coordination. This may, or may not, affect their career.
A great artist doesn't need luck. He was born with it.
A complete myth can still lead to a successful career.
Frequent users of the word "philistine" should seek professional medical help.
BS
quote:Originally posted by Nime:
I have more than a few personal clichés to offer.
An artist is someone who very obviously can draw or paint better than a non-artist. Anything else is just delusion.
Modern art is not art. It is a worthless commercial product looking for a deluded owner.
Nothing has value until someone wants it.
If you can borrow the money to open a gallery you can meet many deluded people quite effortlessly.
Art is the absolute prooof that time travels backwards.
Cave paintings leave modern art for dead. Both are done in the dark.
I know what I like... But it takes imagination, talent and skill well beyond the norm.
Art students are like many other students. But fewer of them have any real talent and almost all want an easy life.
Great artists aren't discovered. Their art was there all the time.
"Difficult art" doesn't exist. Except in the minds of the lazy, deluded dullards who produced it. And the lazy individuals who can make a quick buck out of it. The latter are far more important than the former since the former are completely disposable and just as easily forgotten.
Modern "art" is an oxymoron.
A modern "art" gallery is an oxymoron.
A "hidden" talent for art is an oxymoron.
Modern art could be produced in a factory by untrained chimps. And often is.
A modern artist is an unemployed person with a hobby.
Modern Art "experts" are experts only at self-delusion and deluding the naive. If they weren't doing this they would probably be involved in cult religion or UFO watching or futures markets.
Real art is easily recognisable by all who see it.
Recognising real art requires no coaching, no teaching, no classes, no lessons, no qualifications, no study, no experts and absolutely no special insight.
Recognising real art is not a gift. It is a normal human trait.
Nobody argues about real art. They are too busy admiring it.
Nobody needs to turn their head sideways to look at real art.
Many modern painters were also "scribblers" and "scrubbers" when they were little kids. Physical maturity brought no improvement in their skills, dexterity or hand-to-eye coordination. This may, or may not, affect their career.
A great artist doesn't need luck. He was born with it.
A complete myth can still lead to a successful career.
Frequent users of the word "philistine" should seek professional medical help.
What a load of tripe! Or are you merely beingprovocative (I can't be arsed to work it out).
When you say "Modern Art" do you mean art of the early/mid 20th entury or do you mean contemporary (ie 1980s onwards)?
Modern Art is a term which encompasses masters such as Matisse, Duchamp, Pollock, Kandinsky, Malevich, Leger, Braque, Mondrian, Klee, Ernst and Bacon. The greatest of all modern artists is of course Picasso, who may just about be the most naturally gifted painter who has ever lived. To dismiss him out of hand is not just philistine, it is positively cretinous.
Contemporaty art is more problematical, largely because it rarely seems to exist without an explanatory text (and there are fewer more depressing phrases than "video installation") and seems to have been lurching rom crisis to crisis.
I studied at the Coutauld Institute in London (one of the best places in the world to study asrt history), as well as UCL, and one of the things I learned is that one has to be taught how to look at art before one can fully appreciateit. Not a fashionable thing to say, but only a lazy, deluded dullard would deny it. "Real" art is NOT immediately recognisable by all who see it, because not everyone has been taught to look or to see.
I don't think you'd know "real" art if it ran you down on the motorway.
Are you the sort of oaf who says "I don't know much about art but know what I like" by chance? Got a nice little collection of Tretchikoffs, Lowrys and Vetrianos?
Engage brain before speaking, please!
K
quote:Originally posted by Nime:
When in fact he's only a taxi drover.
Is that like a shepherd with a flock of taxis?
cheers, Martin
No, I was bullshitting a load of old tripe while being deliberately provocative. I'm glad it didn't go completely unnoticed. (He has his followers here baa, baa) 
Picasso was the beginning of the end of real art as far as I'm concerned. A good draughtsman in his early years but lost it later when he took a leap of faith to the dark side.
Why am I not allowed to hold a personal opinion on art without personal attacks on my attitudes?
Sir Mick Thrust wouldn't agree with Steve's politics and vica versa. Which of them is wrong? Which of them is denied their opinion? Which is a philistine? Which is uninformed? Which is talking a load of tripe? Which is being provocative?
Picasso was the beginning of the end of real art as far as I'm concerned. A good draughtsman in his early years but lost it later when he took a leap of faith to the dark side.
Why am I not allowed to hold a personal opinion on art without personal attacks on my attitudes?
Sir Mick Thrust wouldn't agree with Steve's politics and vica versa. Which of them is wrong? Which of them is denied their opinion? Which is a philistine? Which is uninformed? Which is talking a load of tripe? Which is being provocative?
Simple really. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It just happens that some people have no sense or taste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It just happens that some people have no sense or taste
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:quote:one of the things I learned is that one has to be taught how to look at art before one can fully appreciateit.
Translation I was brain washed into thinking their way.
Art should need no explaining. Unless of course you are trying to get shed loads of cash out of someone. IMHO
H