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.

Concetual art is still art though so not sure of your point.

The urinal is in fact a great looking object in it's own right though, irrespective of any concept.

Conceptual.

BTW to the OP - the fact you are talking about student's work is important I think. If there is ever a time to be daft and pretentious then it's when you are learning and discovering art, so give them the benefit of the doubt a bit, is my approach.

They're teenagers - gotta to expect self indulgence. But some may well to turn out to develop into better artists. It's a process ....

i meant that if the concept is the art - why create the object? why have an art gallery to display it? why claim the visual/sensual presentation is art?

Woah eggy! Careful there, you've just come to almost the same realisation Martin Creed did before making his "Lights" piece at the Tate!

except i follow the logical conclusion of keeping the concepts in my head, rather than creating the objects 'because i want to'

a piece of conceptual art dos not need ot be created to be appreciated - it oes however need to be created to serve the needs of art as a business.

I think good art should be original, innovative, interesting, beautiful and soulful. Lots of art isn't any of that. I think an amazing piece of art doesn't need to come with an explanation of what it is. The art of bullshit does sell art unfortunately.

1. if artists kept their ideas in their heads then there'd never be any new art! Not logical atall.

2. artist's need to make money to survive. There's nothing wring in them being paid for their creations. Conceptual or otherwise!

And for what it's worth, i think exhibiting the object around a piece of conceptual art is because objects have a resonance and significance that can help us read and understand the intention in a piece of work.

Take "my bed" by tracey emin. A bed is full of associations, universal associations. Birth, sleep, illness, privacy, matrimony, sex, death. Somany associations when you see a bed. Try to read a piece like that. If you see an object and think of what it could mean, why it's there and what it's saying.

I saw the Tracey Emin exhibition at the Hayward and found it touching and sad -her art is just about her life really- her love for her dad,the babies she lost (the little drawers from the chest of drawers was very sad) the blankets are pretty magnificent. I also saw her watercolours at the Tate's Watercolours exhibition but felt a bit cheated by them -they were very slight I suppose,compared with some of the amazing technically fabulous paintings. I guess I like my watercolours to look wonderful but equally felt a positive response to her bits of knitting,letters,films and detritus.

She did an amazingly touching piece at her Venice bienalle show a few years back, which was a bronze cast of a babies bootie, painted pink and sited on the steps to the building. Just discarded almost. It wasn't pointed out, no White card, not on the map. A secret. Something she'd lost but didn't want to shout about. Soft and pink and little. Just there if you noticed it, sad and lost and wistful. Made me cry.

I do agree that drawing is a basic & essential skill which art schools tend not to do much of these days- a huge shame- we drew constantly. I think when you can do all the basics you can take liberties

Shreikingharpy, art's not just about being able to draw! Yes some great art is in that canon, and your perfectly entitled to prefer it, but there is plenty art that isn't about technical skill and being able to represent reality. Certainly since the invention of photography! Which kinda for alot of artists and art theorists meant the logical end of Painting. Not that it hasn't had several rebirths! But it's really not the same playing field since photography was invented! ( which was over a hundred years ago I hasten to add!)

Time has moved on though Mary! People type more than write these days, take photos more than sketch. Art reflects life. It will continue to evolve even if you stay the same and can't understand it anymore!

I doubt very much that drawing and painting will die out completely. Something to instinctual about man's desire to make a mark. But youdohave to have an open mind. Or you cheat yourself out if too much life ( and art!)

of course,yes things do move on, but the basic skill of drawing -to look and see and observe is a pretty good discipline to have under your belt.

Wouldn't worry too much. the art school's I teach in still teach drawing. You still need a traditional portfolio to get onto a degree. Things haven't changed that much. But art school's also acknowledge cross discliplinary practise and contemporary theory. Which in my opinion are as important as bodies as knowledge for a contemporary artist as drawing skills

Cross post harpy?

where do you teach,out of interest ?

Anyway shall go to bed now ( back home nowafter mostboring train journey ever zzzzzzzzz). But thanks for the chat! Hereby relinquishing my time as defender of contemporary art. It can fend for itself, ugly beast that it is!

Night!

Edit: all over the country Mary, freelance innit!

X

Agree with Mapley. DS is not very arty at all, hates drawing and painting but put him on a computer and his art teacher says his work is exquisite, he is a very good photographer as well, he has a good eye but really will never have the ability or the patience to put pen to paper.

We do have a professional artist in the family. He is a former vice president of the RWS and now in his 80s still making a living from regular commissions.

"In which case, how do you differentiate between the good, the bad and the crap and the sublime? Does the only measure of the quality of a piece then depend upon its longevity or commercial value?"

Honestly, I don't think you can. As it does all come down to personal opinion. I think you can differentiate between popular and unpopular, or commercial or not. But I just don't think "good" is quantifiable, especially as part of every piece of art is how the viewer reacts to it. Eg. I look at Duchamp's fountain and it fascinates me and makes me smile (mainly due to knowing the context), whereas another person will (quite factually) point out it is just an upside down urinal and actually makes them angry that it is considered art. Neither person is wrong, just looking at it slightly differently.

"Technical skills, like drawing, painting..even photography should surely be an integral part of any foundation art course..no? It should be a prerequisite for entry into any educational (art) establishment.."

As far as I'm aware it still is.

Interesting you should mention Photography though, there are still a lot of people who disagree that Photography is art. The arguments being that photography is capturing something not made by the photographer, and that anyone could do it (I disagree there, using a camera well is quite a skill). But a lot of people believe the Photography does not show any skill in art, and is instead more like science.