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.

and i'm quite happy for anyone to dislike what they want to, but not to decide because they don't like it it's shit, is a bit stupid.

For instance , I don't like "Love in the Time of Chlolera" , Muse or Zombie films. But i know they aren't shit.

I do not have any training in art. All I know is what I feel. What I feel for an artist?s work. My feelings are valid. Why is ?shit? not a valid reaction to a piece? You seem fixated on the word. Read back my intial post and you will not see it. So why so condescending in your first response, because I dared to dislike 'Light'? I did use the word subsequently and I do not believe it is stupid, Mapley. It is what I feel about it so, surely, that is valid? Had I realized my lack of eloquence would invalidate my right to have an opinion, I would not have bothered.

I find it really difficult to engage with people such as yourself who clearly feel superior to people such as me because of your background. It is not good, and makes me a bit sad.

"and i'm quite happy for anyone to dislike what they want to, but not to decide because they don't like it it's shit, is a bit stupid."

Do artists have some kind of special power against going off the boil at an unfortunate time, with deadlines that must be met looming and producing something shit as a result ?

In any field, in any profession, even at the very, very top of the range in terms of talent and brilliance, people will wax and wane for a huge variety of reasons and that will impact both process and final product. Nobody is immune to paying lip service, or doing a bodge job against the clock when their "specialness" has buggered off and left them high and dry for a bit.

It seems odd to consider the arts to be somehow vaccinated against human fallibility.

I think it would be rather disturbing (and point to a potential need to reassess my stance on the lizard people living among us) if a goodly number of artist, no matter how amazing, didn't exhibit at least one piece of shit once they had "arrived" thanks to the loss of the hunger, too many sycophants surrounding them, too much comfort zone, the destabilizing effect of "rock star" lifestyle taking at least a temporary toll.

Plus there is also burn out to consider. I'd imagine that in art like any other field you risk losing your place at the top if you went off an a hiatus when you needed to, rather than when it was convenient or made good business sense.

can I change outo f the Crimplene now, it does chaffe so x

my apologies to the middle aged women artists. I was being specific about a known group of women, not generalising about women in general . No offence intended.

Actually, one of the most beautiful and talented artist in the group is middle aged woman - she made the most stunning piece which was both original and beautifully executed.

I wonder though how we should judge art - by its aesthetic? By popular appeal? the commercial viability? By the critics? How should we judge what is and isnt art?

My dh is an artist. He is collected privately and publicly around the world and we live a very good life on the proceeds of his work. He does not court publicity and does not have a 'rock star' lifestyle. His work is planned, it's considered, it's never rushed and he will only exhibit or sell work that he is 100% happy with. It can take him 2 -3 years to get a body of work together. The hiatus doesn't detract anything, in fact it makes his work more desirable so to speak.

As serious as he is and as deeply thought out as his work is, there are always people who look at it and say 'that's shit' or 'l could do that'. It's mildly annoying but par for the course. Everybody's an art expert these days.

Ihateclowns- "rubbish' and "shit" mean the same. And ofcourse you're entitled to an opinion, but don't expect it to be respected unless it's an informed one. And that goes for everything, not just art.

Fastweb. You've an interesting brain and you're fun to read! Not sure what you're train of thought has to do with my quote, as I wasn't intending to suggest the arts were immune to human fraility.

I actually quite like it when artists go off the boil abit, as they're creative output shows mirrors their life experience in someway and talks of the human condition. I'm thinking Tracey Emin's Venice Bienalle show in 2007, David Bowie in the eighties, alot of second novels.

Why should we judge art? Shouldn't we contemplate it instead? If a piece has no resonance for me that doesn't mean you won't get something from it.

"I wonder though how we should judge art - by its aesthetic? By popular appeal? the commercial viability? By the critics? How should we judge what is and isnt art?"

by all those and more! But judge commercial art by it's commercial viabilty. And judge popular art by it's popular appeal! And judge Those artists with critically engaged practises by the critics!

Personally I think jack vettriano, Anthony Gormley and Martin creed are great artists. ( although I don't particularly like any of them)

Art is a very broad term.

I'm with kandinskysgirl. It's easy to look at a piece of modern/contemporary art, and a Turner or something, and think that the Turner is better, but so many artists whose work is now considered conservative and pleasant were dismissed or reviled or not understood in their lifetime, just as people now say they don't 'understand' Pollock or Emin.

It's also possible to engage with art on so many levels, and not all art is created to be a straightforward aesthetically-pleasing product. Personally I love Gainsborough for the finished product. They're the 18th-century equivalent of gorgeous Vanity Fair photoshoots IMO, and simply beautiful to look at (plus often being portraits of people scandalous and much gossiped-about in their time ? not so different from Grazia really) but also loved the 'crack' at Tate Modern because I was intrigued by the process and loved the way people interacted with it. Plus the fact that it made the Turbine Hall feel dangerous.

Edit- although some art I'm sure works on a few levels. Brain not fully engaged. Sorry! X

Good post Lady clarice!

The Impressionists were so called as an insult as their work was considered messy and unfinished, a mere impression of art. They were hated and considered charlatans.

I'm not that keen on Turner tbh - occasionallly wonderful but I've seen a lot of his work which looks like a wishy washy blur to me!

It's in the eye of the beholder, same as with anything else - wine, food, books, films, TV. But the more you know about it the more eloquently you wil be able to describe why you do and don't like it! Fine art is probably more than anything else about how it makes YOU feel.

Mapley - this is MN and thus I have no expectations of anything, I do not expect posters to respect my opinion. But I am livid when I'm called stupid because a sneering poster does not like my turn of phrase and/or opinion.

I concede, ?shit? is crude way of describing my feelings on the installation but it is succinct and fundamentally captured my initial unedited response when I first saw it. So for me the description is perfect. I believe that each one of us has the absolute privilege and freedom to interpret and appraise art in whatever way we choose, be it crudely or in a more erudite manner.

Our acknowledgment of it?s existence makes it ART (entering the realms of metaphysics and subjective idealism here, apologies). These perceived works of art will then inspire criticism, good and bad. This is art.

Then, perhaps everyone is an art expert.

Don't feel you have speak pretentious twaddle in order to be understood ihateclowns, I think I preferred you when you were less erudite ;-)

Anyway, fair enough. You feel that "shit" is a perfect response. I doubt Martin Creed disagree with you! What kind of art do you like?

God, Mapley. The last part was actually an attempt to answer Hatti's question - How we judge art. It was not to you. You need to get over yourself.

I am now both stupid and write pretentious twaddle. What a horribly hateful person you are.

David Bowie in the eighties

but...but...I LOVED David Bowie in the 80s

I think Merry Xmas Mr Lawrence is perhaps my favourite movie ever and it was the first time I ever saw film as anything other than something to watch for pure entertainment. I thought (and still do think) it is Art with a capital A, just in moving form.

I really don't understand why nobody else liked it and came away at the credits without the same sense of ...something I can't put into words...that I did.

I thought kadinskysgirl made a very interesting post earlier. I found that quite thought-provoking, thank you.

I don't like most modern-art and wouldn't give it houseroom, but that's because I wouldn't enjoy looking at it, which is what I want from art - to enjoy looking at it.

That doesn't mean I don't get it, though this is quite a recent turnaround for me. I was never keen on Tracy Emin TBH until I heard her interviewed on Woman's Hour, talking about what hear art meant to her, and then I found some of her pieces incredibly moving actually. I went from disliking her and her art to admiring her enormously and seeing what her art was meant to signify.

I never called you stupid, I said what you said sounded stupid. And I was just teasing with the prententious twaddle. Hence the wink. But I admit I was being a bit provocative and you seem to be taking our discussion more to heart than I am and don't wish to distress you, so I'll stop talking to you now.

Ps- swearing and calling me names aren't the nicest either.

Fastweb- :-D betcha liked Labaryth too!

Sunshine and books, great post! I love Emin too! She's really from the heart.

Ps- apologies, don't mean to take over the thread with posts. Am
not meaning to take over, am just on a long train journey and like talking about art!

how i decide whether something is art or not -

I look at it, think about it, and if I then still need to look at the little white card thing to tell me what its about, then it evidently isn't a piece of art, rather it is something the artist is relying upon knowledge outsie the exhibit to make it relevant and intersting (so: gimmickery)

Tracey Emin is quite a gifted seamstress, and i think her work dos not rely upon the little white card. I don't like it, but hat doesn't mena it isn't art.

There was a piece in the Tate called 'they shoot horses don't they' which was a film of a discothon with Palaestinian teenagers...now i went into said exhibit..thought 'hmm nice music, typical teenage awkwardness on dance floor...' and then the little white card tries to tell me this is meant to be a political work...well, only if you listen to the hype. Not if you look at the 'artwork'.

Equally, a shed that someone sailed down the Elbe (look at it: you are looking at a shed) - could any of the bathtubs raced in the famous Adur Bathtub race be exhibitted too? Much white-cardery at work, rather than art.

Have sort of skim read most of this, have a tired toddler clambering on me. But from my experience of Art in student terms (A Level, Foundation Level & then design at University) students are 'required' to justify & research & explain their work. When I had an idea for something I used to make up some pretentious explanation of what it represented just to please the tutors/examiners. It is such personal thing. I had terrible trouble at university understanding what I was 'required' to do & being pulled in different directions on a daily basis by tutors who gave different 'advice' because of course it was all based on their personal opinions & taste!

At university I did some research into art for art's sake. But don't ask me to quote anything my brain doesn't function anymore after being at home with DD for 3 years (nearly). I just can't 'do' intellectual anymore. Suffice it to say, we all have different tastes in everything! Why should art be any different?

Personally I appreciate art on a purely aesthetic level. If it passes that test I will then consider it's deeper meaning. Installation & performance art have their place, but it's not going to be in your living room is it! If they make you think about an issue then surely that is a good thing? But I have to say that I think much of it can be highly pretentious & not profound in any way shape or form!

My Uncle likes to consider himself a 'struggling artist', and alot of his work I cannot make any sense of at all. But some of it is beautiful to look at, and I'm happy therefore to give it house room! :o