You must be taking the p#ss!

[Wham]

Bushbride - i was with you 100% right up until:

But, ultimately, it is a dollar sign - someone is willing to pay money for the pleasure of viewing it…
...this goes right back to the renaissance – the wealthy paid for Michelangelo, Di Vinci etc to create artworks for them – hence art is art when someone puts a $ sign.

i don't think the caveman that created the square was thinking about $ - and while i think it is great that people do spend lots of money on art - say public works etc and many masters did have sponsors - to say that they go hand in hand does kind of deminish the humanism that inspires many non commissioned great works of art.

[bushbride]

I do not mean to 'diminish the humanism' of art. Merely, I state a fact of the art world (and ultimately 'high culture') though it may be a bit raw.

Art is also an inspired idea - I take no issue with that.

However, even artworks not commissioned, like the caveman's square have a dollar sign attached to them. Art, whether the dollar sign is attached to it through 'tourists pays' for viewing (square on cave wall), tourist pays to see Caesars bathing quarters through a metal cage (another example) - it is still comes down to dollars - commissioned, purchased (privately or by a gallery), or pay to view.

[sapphire]

Even the mighty Rembrandt suffered when his famous painting 'The Nightwatch' which was so chaotic and informal in composition, that those who had paid to be represented took offence. And, the plunge in Rembrandt's fortunes began. He died a bankrupt and lonely painter. Money is important, even for art to survive and flourish.

[Bubbles]

Hi Wham

I think you got me wrong there. I didn't say I didn't like modern, or conceptual art.....what I said was I didn't think art could be created unless it had been studied and practised for a considerable time, so that the artist had control over his mediums and had worked in many mediums and become master of them.

Then........if they wanted to put paper squares on velvet, with glue and glitter.........then they at least were masters of the form.....

I love the cubist movement, Picasso, etc.....so, I wasn't saying I didn't like modern art per se....

But yes of course, someone CAN be talented and untaught.....

But tell me, those cave paintings....we revere them because of what???

The age?

The beauty?

.....perhaps both.

But if it's only because of the age, then in fact, anyone who now chucks a bit of paint onto a wall, say from a graffiti spray can, and is discovered a million years down the line.........is also an artist....

Or are we talking about 'talent?'.....if we are then how do were define 'talent?'

I know many people who think Picasso is rubbish, and untalented. It amazes me, but not all 'art' appeals.

So, it has to be what 'speaks' to someone, then it becomes art.

For me, I've usually found the art I love comes from artists, new and old, who have practised long and different styles, and mediums.

I don't think there's a short cut to great art.

Tracey Emin's work is very debatable, but I like it. Even her 'bed' work. That's because she has a long history as an artist and her painted work is very, very good. She's just expressing it now in a different way.

But I still would say her mucky chucked on the bed stuff is art, but not my kind of art.

But I would not say my son's messy bedroom is art, cos he's no practising artist.

I just think a good working history and some hard slogging at your craft makes for what is usually universally seen as art.

[Wham]

Bubbles, i assure you that we DO disagree.

Hi Wham
I think you got me wrong there. I didn't say I didn't like modern, or conceptual art.....what I said was I didn't think art could be created unless it had been studied and practised for a considerable time, so that the artist had control over his mediums and had worked in many mediums and become master of them...I just think a good working history and some hard slogging at your craft makes for what is usually universally seen as art.

If we consider the cave man cube, according to your analysis - if he had spent years drawing Elk, and THEN drew the cube, it would be art because he had "practised his craft" - but if he sat there and looked at others drawing Elks, and then out of the blue one day walked up and drew the cube, this would not be art. This just doesn't make any sense.

It appears to me that you buy into the whole idea that somehow having some hard knocks and putting in lots of effort gives someone the right to make crap and call it art - whereas if someone who is brilliant but unstudied comes along and makes something brilliant it is not art. I think that this is EXACTLY the type of establishment bs that Duchamp was trying to debunk - and you still don't see it.

and while i am at it - did you even read the Sponge Bob story?????? SHESH! The whole point of the story was 100% the opposite of what you are saying. WHO CARES how many classes or how much effort someone has put in - it is comletely irrelevant to the question of weather or not what they create is art.

[Bubbles]

I totally agree with the fact that having not studied can still make you an artist and that having studied can make you not...........that is NOT what I was saying. Didn't I say that grafitti artists can be thought just that...artists? And that long studied artists, Picasso, can be thought rubbish?

What I was saying was that........I.....think that the art which appeals to ME...is the art which comes from trained (as in gone through years of practice, not neccessarily years of art school) is the art I enjoy. And I do not neccessarily like it all, either. But it generally happens that the stuff which appeals to me is done by long time artists. Especially portraiture.

I just feel you can see what a modern artist is getting at, even at their most extreme, if they've been exposed to all the schools of artistic thought, and seen what others before them have also tried to express.

Sure, someone can put a Sprite bottle on a plastic bag with a dead rat poking out, and some yellow paint dropped on its head......it could be called art if it were done by the old artist and someone who has never held a brush before........and that is what we can get misled by......we can stand and look for meanings when perhaps there never was one meant. Perhaps it was all a joke. But I'd be more prepared to believe it was meant as some 'artistic' work if it had been done by the person with the artistic background. Otherwise, every single thing you see is art. The bit of paper in the gutter, the cockroach squashed by your shoe, the eyesore rubbish dumped outside your house, anything...

I don't like to revere 'works of art' unless there's a bit of history of attempt behind them. Yes, you can admire your kids painting from school, but do you think them works of art, ...perhaps....but surely you wouldn't go pin it up at the Tate Modern and say that 'this was painted by an artist?'.....you'd say, 'This was painted by my child, nice, isn't it?'

To have the title 'Artist' belong to you it should surely mean something? Like....this person has put effort and time into his/her craft, that's why they are an artist.

Fine to admire stuff but I'd rather it was honestly done and stated as.....

'An attempt by a novice at compostition'.......not touted around the world as art.

But you see, this whole discussion is circular because in the end, it's only what your eyes and brain loves and recognises as art which will become art to you anyway.......trained or untrained, so it is true...........a toilet stuck in the street truly is ART, it's just that it is not your conception of what is art.

But all I was trying to say is that, for me....(and my opinion is as valid as anyones)....to love what I see is usually to love a work by an artist with a history of going through some sort of pattern of striving and change...not neccessarily academically, but known to have done other work in different areas. Yes, I've loved stuff I've seen kids do, but to go 'Ah, that's fantastic' it is usually by artists who've gone through the whole rigmarole.

[Wham]

Bubbs, Oh my god lady! bla bla bla bla bla, blabla bla-BLA! I'm sorry, but you really do suffer from the complete inability to actually make a point. You also seem to completely igore the concept of replying to the previous posts. Please take a moment to read the references to Sponge Bob, and then respond concisey in 100 words or less - and LESS is preferable - PLEASE!!!!

[Wham]

(and my opinion is as valid as anyones)

sorry, i think not. All the babbling makes your's worth less...

[bushbride]

Wow, I think that we need to put you two at opposite ends of the forum here...

deep breadths people....in and out, in and out...

think happy thoughts - rainbows, doves, smiling faces....feeling a little calmer?

I think that Bubs does have a point that is very much on topic Wham.

Art needs to be appreciated. Just as Sponge Bob's work was viewed by a buyer, and appreciated, then he was considered an artist and people wanted more – just couldn’t resist plugging in that point again 

We care deeply about art, because it has meaning – to us individually and collectively…Bubs is not wrong to have an ideological view that something ‘great’ has to have meaning. I applaud that notion. Art has to have meaning - the square on cave wall has meaning (an unprecedented idea) and it is appreciated today – though it may have been intended to be an Elk that didn’t work out

The Sponge Bob story can tell us many things, and a few that Bub’s reflects in her comments. For one, a good mentor or teacher can grow a talent, and, according to Sponge Bob, a bad one (or jealous one) can destroy a talent even quicker.

The other factor that is in the Sponge Bob story is opportunity. The opportunity (or luck) of having a work viewed by a ‘buyer’ or ‘audience’ and appreciated/ valued makes it art – A little plug again. So in fact, an artist could be considered the person who is talented and has enough insight to appeal to an audience or buyer.

However, simply being taught does not mean that you are an artist. Most artists (anyone remembered anyway) have a 'spark'. Just as we would say that someone has a natural ability or 'spark' in science, or music, or even business. A 'spark' needs to be there, a passion for what you are doing, dedication and mentoring to grow a talent... I can appreciate this point.

We live in the consumer/ commercial art world, Wham, it’s a lot more competitive now than the 20,000 years ago caveman community.

Anyone can be a one hit wonder, anyone can do someting novel, but it does not mean they will be a revered or remembered artist!

[Wham]

Sorry if i was too harsh, but there was just so much mental flotsam and jetsam to wade through that a got irritated...or should i say miffed, because either word would work well, and you know, its so easy to...write a lot of words without thinking because...i like to sit here and type away...for hours on end...and not really get to they point - ok sometimes get to the point, but in a circular way...

Sound familiar?

anyway, i would rather think about the caveman and wonder if some hot cave chick came along in a skimpy rabbit skin thong - and saw the Cube and thought WOW, this is brilliant, (and since there was no money - and i must admit you have a point about the money thing) decided to give him a good taste of the one thing BETTER than money!!!

[AirCon]

You're weird, Wham, but I agreeg 100% with you on both fronts.

Writing a tome does not make something right, even if you consider your opinion to be worthwhile.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I want you all to notice that Eric & I have stayed on the sidelines on this one as we have already done it.

[Wind In My Hair]

I want you all to notice that Eric & I have stayed on the sidelines on this one as we have already done it.

ok i notice. do i get a prize?

question for wham: why don't you just ignore long posts instead of ploughing through them seething all the way?

[Wham]

WIMH, I normally do try to ignore things that are too complicated or likely dead ends, but somehow i think i just got dragged into this one, or should i say, lured into it, because... well really there is a difference in the two words, not a huge difference, but on one hand you could say i was dragged in by myself whereas... you could also say i was pulled in by the content....but i digress, but only because i want to digress - which reminds me of egrets! Have you ever seen an egret in the morning? EHEHEH!

Ok, enough. I am still just wondering what the cave chick looked like.

... and SMS and Eric, i did notice. Damn! You are men of immeasureable restraint. I am sure i am headed to he$$ for all of this...

[Vaucluse]

WIMH, I normally do try to ignore things that are too complicated or likely dead ends, but somehow i think i just got dragged into this one, or should i say, lured into it, because... well really there is a difference in the two words, not a huge difference, but on one hand you could say i was dragged in by myself whereas... you could also say i was pulled in by the content....but i digress, but only because i want to digress - which reminds me of egrets! Have you ever seen an egret in the morning? EHEHEH!

Ok, enough. I am still just wondering what the cave chick looked like.

... and SMS and Eric, i did notice. Damn! You are men of immeasureable restraint. I am sure i am headed to he$$ for all of this...

Moving to the Middle East, are you? Either that or Jersey . . .