to think a lot of "art" is in fact self indulgent tat?

[HattiFattner]

I went to an exhibit of students work this weekend.

Some of it was extraordinary and showed amazing talent.

Most of it was a load of tat. Not just that, but over thought, pretentious and had a royal element of intellectual self gratification about it....

I came away thinking that the "artists" were suffering from a bad case of the Emperors New Clothes - "Oh i took a neoclassical genre and use it to create an installation about teenaged angst in the 21st century and really you must be an intellectual to understand the use of light and space and ...."

• no love, you made a bowl. With a bunny in it.

And of course if you said that to their face "She just doesnt understand it..."

I would like a really Simon Cowell moment with some of them and to be able to call them out. But their argument is "Its "art" because I say it is."

Hey, on that basis I live in an "installation" called "Domestic Chaos"

Or maybe "Untitled IV" which makes it sound alltogether more worthy.

my grandma studied art at art school in the 20s - I guess that was unusual and she was lucky enough that her family could afford to send her.

I studied graphic design - my art school had a very strong illustrative leaning with excellent tutors and I ended up as an illustrator (which is what I am now) There were very definitely divisions between the fine artists and the 'commercial' artists that's for sure.
Illustration,done by hand,pen,ink,watercolour etc is my prefered medium though I certainly don't object to illustration done on computer -each have their market. I don't think you can beat the satisfaction and skill required though to draw directly on the paper. The pleasure of using inks and lovely watercolour paper is a big part of it all for me .

fastweb, your post is incredibly moving. Thank you for sharing.

If I might ask more questions of the art appreciators? If all art is worthwhile for arts sake and all art has merit, then how can any one piece by marked/scored by an examiner? How does one compare a load of plaster cups to a mock up of an old ladies living room? How do you determine, as an examiner, what is good and bad, what deserves an A and what deserves an F?

And if the artist believes in the idea that all art is good, and worthwhile, how do they learn from their mistakes and improve if their flaws and errors are seen as a part of their art?

I''m not actually sure Hatti, it was the subject of many student v. tutor debates at college

I think it's why there is so much emphasis on "meaning" as then you can be marked on your ability to explain. Which to me shows an ability in English and/or debate rather than art. Art is one of the areas where I think grading work actually is the wrong idea, and we'd be better off just using art courses to teach techniques and art history (or art context as my college called it) and giving people a chance to build up portfolios or work. After all, what use is an A grade if noone else enjoys your work?

Flaws and errors in art are an interesting area. My college used to use the irritating phrase "happy accident", which, despite the stupidity of the phrase itself, was very useful. "Accidents" and "flaws" in work can open up new options, and (more cynically) add value.

Also, trying to judge what is a mistake is in art is difficult. In technical work, that's easier, eg. a photograph which isn't in focus. But then saying that, one of my friends really likes out of focus photos, as she likes the focus being on the colours and tones.

"Can the non informed tell instinctively that something is a lone effort, or do you need expertise to be able to work out how many hands and heads played a part in the process and production ?"

I don't know, that's interesting though that you tend to dislike group works. It's also made me rethink my views on group art, a few years ago I wanted to start a project where artists were able to add to each others work (randomly assigned) kind of like the Surrealists' Exquisite Corpse

Hatti, from a intellectual and also personal point of veiw I'm not sure that you can ultimately judge quality in art. But from a practical point if view art is constantly judged frommany different perspectives. At school, technical skill and putting the hours in. At art college (fine art), the ability to explain your ideas and fit within a certain context. As a practiscing artist ( fine arts again) you're judged on your body of work, the places you've exhibited before, the tenacity and development of your vision and whether you fit within a particular curatorial or critical framework.

yes, it is self indulgent. But to a degree so are we all

interesting though that you tend to dislike group works

Well my dislike so far appears to be for group works that I didn't know were group works cos they were attributed to a single artist.

I know that retrospectively finding out that there were unsung hands in the creation of Masterpieces puts me off them further, seems fundamentally dishonest to say its a X, when it is in fact X plus lots of other people.

I don't know if the dislike would extend to something that was overtly a group effort. Especially since, if you move the argument over to dance, I get more excited\moved by performances that are made up of many solos happening at the same time that both stand alone AND form a part of the whole. Less keen on on one spotlighted performer with everybody else being sort of mobile scenery, even with turn taking.

I can see me liking a collage (or a paint based version of) that had many contributors for example, IF the colours and shapes hit the spot.

Oh wait I DO like group effort.

Tibetan sand things, the ones that get swept away. The group aspect bothers me not one bit, and doesn't get in the way of me loving the colours and shapes at all.

Which also demonstrates I don't appear to have an issue with deeper meaning when it strikes me as genuine (even when annoying, cos I'd much rather they glued the sand in place even though I understand why they don't) rather than contrived.

Ah Ha !! Am going to rush upstairs and inform husband that the above proves I am not a complete philistine despite what he thinks. He feels Italy is somewhat wasted on somebody who treats art museums as places to practice speed walking for the exit in and can't see past the graffiti (or stop the resultant chuntering about the need to make the "artists" wash off the spray paint with their tongues) to appreciate architecture.

Haha :) See this is why I love art, I love the way different people react to it! And how illogical the feelings towards different pieces of art can be

I love the way different people react to it!

I'm not sure I'd have been greatly loved if I had given into my desire to fly over to the Tate Modern and start frantically filling in the crack with polyfilla ( ;

Hehe, well I went there with 100's of people dressed as zombies and we lay on the floor pretending to look for brains in it.

Oh gosh sunshine thanks for saying my post made you think, it made me go all red in my living room .

Fascinating debate, as I said modern art is not my specialisation at all, and I do think that some things take a while to get my head around. However I would like to suggest something to some people who have said that if you have to look at the white card to inform you about the painting then it isn't 'real' art.

I did think this myself for quite a few years, and I also would get irritated by the huge range of ideas that artists were trying to convey, lots with quite a lot of academic discussion needed to be read to understand the context. In a seminar I stated this view and my lecturer pointed out that a lot of what traditionalists call 'real art' i.e the Masters, are based on biblical stories. Because in the West (and certainly it is vital when studying art history) you tend to have a strong knowledge of the church and biblical stories you already understand the narrative and context without even processing it in your head.

For example this painting by Fra Angelico en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fra_Angelico_043.jpg

is a depiction of The Annunciation. It is quite clearly an annunciation painting, and even if you couldn't recognise that straight away it is part of fresco cycle of the life of Jesus so within the context of the cycle as a Westerner it is likely that you could figure out that the painting was the annunciation part quite simply and all the associated feeling/biblical context surrounding it will be clear to you very quickly as you already have the knowledge in your head.

However imagine if you had never heard of the Bible, Mary, Jesus or Gabriel. Looking at the picture you wouldn't be wrong in thinking that those two figures are venerating the pillar in the middle of them and that we had some sort of artist that was painting lovely nice architectural columns...if you look at it like that it becomes a bit of a surreal and bizarre painting.

So what I am trying (probably failing) to emphasize is that the surreal/bizarre modern art may well have just an emotive and important message behind it, we just don't have the narrative voice so easily to hand to clarify what it means. We also dont have such a comprehensive ideal throughout the world anymore (i.e the Catholic church) so instead fo the majority of artists working on a similar theme (religion) which can be compared and contrasted very neatly, we have thoughts on climate, religion, planet, personal, politics which makes you have to work for the meaning in a different way.

Just quickly on the topic of group/solo artists, many academic texts have been written about the transformation of art as a trade to art as a solo master but we do generally know who worked as a team and who worked solo, mainly due to the era they worked in, but also due to the practise of Connoisseurship which aims to clarify who painted specifically what areas of a painting, it isnt a science though.

Sorry for the essay I love this subject

Once upon a time I thought that the purpose of art was to communicate an idea through visual media. There are lots of things I don't understand and lots of things are art for art's sake. Like anything else, it can be very cliquey, and any clique will have its supporters.

I think there's a lot of dross around, but if people are good self-publicists, they will probably do well.

I think that art is a rich person's game. It's expensive to produce and expensive to buy, whatever your taste (unless you want to go to Ikea).

These other visions of domestic chaos: Why are they not in a gallery then? It's one thing to produce these things. Quite another to share them with the world. I'm sure that when the chaotic kitchen gets its space in a gallery, a lot of people will recognise it and maybe feel that it's not just them. For the person who gets the installation seen, job done.

I agree kandinskygirl I find that some art has left me cold, until I've done the equivalent of reading the white card and discovered the context for it. Whether that's the intending meaning, events surrounding it, etc.

Eg. Monet's Impression, Soleil Levant does nothing for me visually, however I love it for changing painting by breaking the pre-existing rules. Without knowing about it's context, it's just another landscape.

"I think that art is a rich person's game. It's expensive to produce and expensive to buy, whatever your taste"

I don't think this is (or should be) the case. There are thousands of talented artists out there.

"I think that art is a rich person's game. It's expensive to produce and expensive to buy, whatever your taste"

I think that's a really sad statement and it is one that I hear many many times. I come from a background where art just wasn't on the radar, not something that was considered as something to see, talk about or discuss. I have no idea where my love of it comes from, probably because I love learning about history and art is one of the best ways to learn about history. However I encourage as many people as possible to enjoy it, it is so interesting giving context and visualisations of some many cultures in the world.

And If not for anything else you get to look at lots of pretty paintings, because many of them are beautiful too!!

I think that art is a rich person's game. It's expensive to produce and expensive to buy, whatever your taste

Not so much now I don't think, if you go for what you like rather than what gets lots of attention.

I could afford this, which is very appealing to me.

www.etsy.com/listing/75962059/contemporary-original-painting-modern?ref=v1_other_1

in fact it is cheaper than a good quality repo of the paintings I like (the IKEA ones don't seem to reproduce the colours right...or something. I need to stand at least five meters away with my glasses off to like them, and I don't want to find myself irritated at the decoration on my wall unless I'm peering at it from behind the telly in an effort to get enough distance)

What I couldn't afford is going over to see it for real first to make sure that I still liked it when not on a computer screen (which does something to the colours) and the flaming great row with DH who would throw an absolute fit about me bringing that in the house whilst still maintaining my rigid "keep your sodding, ugly antiques in the garage unless I am allowed to paint them cream" stance.

linky annoyance

www.etsy.com/listing/75962059/contemporary-original-painting-modern?ref=v1_other_1

It's also easy to buy replica prints, with the improvements in technology alot of these look identical to the original, and only examining them would prove otherwise.

I've got some beautiful art, most of which I have barely paid anything for.

It depends on what you want. Studios don't come cheap. Time and experience don't cost nothing. Materials aren't free. Most artists do another job so that they can afford to create. Getting work out into the world can be very expensive. Cheap exhibition space is not a given.

I personally do not enjoy art guff. The special form of writing that goes with some otherwise inpenetrable image. There are plenty of people who get it though.

HOrses for courses.

It really does depend. I create art through a love of creating, I have friends who do the same. A lot of artists choose to produce cheaper prints to get their work out there.

"Cheap exhibition space is not a given."
In the internet age, this isn't such an issue.

No it's not such an issue. Reproducing work can be though. Some pictures do not photograph well and not everything can be easily scanned. As I said, horses for courses.

I am lucky in that I have a lot of arty friends. As I can only write essays on art, but run away at the sight of a paintbrush this is handy as I get some beautiful originals at cheap prices, or if I am very lucky for free .

I think with the internet it is easier to find artists who are affordable but I also think people are reluctant to buy without being guided...espeically on more abstract things as they havent been 'told' things are 'good'. I think sometimes people feel it hard to trust their own opinions, when in reality that is all art is.

Empusa what sort of things do you create?

And you are right silent, I love art and the ballet but am really nor sure on opera at all...I am sure if I learnt more about it and put effort into appreciating it I could, but basically I have enough stuff I love so I don't. To an opera lover that would be me missing out on such a wonderous thing, but I'm pretty ok on missing out on it

Horses for Courses

kandinsky Digital art mainly nowadays. Like this and this