|
Nestat
|
|
|
|
Quote: Keel, Wednesday, 10 Feb 2010 06:39It’s the same for me, just the one visit to Dublin in the late seventies. A couple of friends got married in the middle of a Guinness strike. It was a bloody miserable wedding reception. I'm getting a picture in my head that a Guiness strike in Ireland is similar to a meteor strike anywhere else?
Writing for yourself is writing for others: "My book could very well end up being reconstituted as a trestle table in a home for battered women." - Alan Partridge
|
|
Keel
|
|
|
|
Nestat, it was far worse than that. A blend of Armageddon and purgatory would have best summed it up. The upside was a few of us managed to sneak away and find a few pints still on offer in Mulligan’s bar, I lost count after ten, make hay and all that. I can’t remember what happened then, except that we weren’t very popular the following morning.
Hey saucy, that's the best offer I've had all night.
|
|
DaiBach
|
|
|
|
Sulcus, hello again. We used to disagree sometimes when I was David Powell. Sorry I am so late to this thread. You write:- Quote: If visual art has to rely on the written language, what is its purpose? Where is there any integrity of its own visual language. There isn't any. Modern art died not with Duchamp's urinal, but when Rene Magritte scrawled "Ceci n'est que une pipe" across his painting of a pipe. Quite. And you may be right. But "Ceci n'est qu'une pipe" means, of course, "This is only a pipe." Now, I'm afraid you got the French a bit wrong, Magritte wrote in fact, Ceci n'est pas une pipe." (This is not a pipe), which may not make a difference to you, but possibly did to Magritte. For those who haven't seen the picture it is an almost photographic representation of a smokers pipe, with the words written, quite neatly I thought, underneath it. And what Magritte was trying to do was to make the person who looked at the painting think more about the fact that is was not a 'pipe' but an image of a pipe. He was trying to draw people into the absurdity of seeing images as real things. Maybe he was being silly, stupid whatever, but it is a subject which constantly concerned him. And he was, when he chose to be, a fine 'traditional' painter, but felt he could use his gift to provoke a different way of looking at things. So that, in this case, was his purpose. So to say that 'modern art died' with this painting, does seem an extreme viewpoint, don't you think? Mind you, I agree about the pickled shark and the current heap of old clothes in Paris, but not Magritte, no.
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
Quote: DaiBach, Thursday, 11 Feb 2010 21:30Sulcus, hello again. We used to disagree sometimes when I was David Powell. Sorry I am so late to this thread. You write:- Quote: If visual art has to rely on the written language, what is its purpose? Where is there any integrity of its own visual language. There isn't any. Modern art died not with Duchamp's urinal, but when Rene Magritte scrawled "Ceci n'est que une pipe" across his painting of a pipe. Quite. And you may be right. But "Ceci n'est qu'une pipe" means, of course, "This is only a pipe." Now, I'm afraid you got the French a bit wrong, Magritte wrote in fact, Ceci n'est pas une pipe." (This is not a pipe), which may not make a difference to you, but possibly did to Magritte. For those who haven't seen the picture it is an almost photographic representation of a smokers pipe, with the words written, quite neatly I thought, underneath it. And what Magritte was trying to do was to make the person who looked at the painting think more about the fact that is was not a 'pipe' but an image of a pipe. He was trying to draw people into the absurdity of seeing images as real things. Maybe he was being silly, stupid whatever, but it is a subject which constantly concerned him. And he was, when he chose to be, a fine 'traditional' painter, but felt he could use his gift to provoke a different way of looking at things. So that, in this case, was his purpose. So to say that 'modern art died' with this painting, does seem an extreme viewpoint, don't you think? Mind you, I agree about the pickled shark and the current heap of old clothes in Paris, but not Magritte, no. Hi David, firstly I am mortified that I got the French wrong, but not as mortified as my old French teacher Richard Fawcett would be were he to stalk YWO (which frankly I doubt). I was in top set too... Not only was it an image of a pipe, but one painted on a canvas, an image of an image if you will. Meta as they say in poncy literary circles. But it still only works through the linguistic pointing up of the conundrum. That was my point. Art needs to find an exclusively visual language (such as the Impressionists or the Cubists possessed) that can have it stand up in its own right. Of course, seeing as light , colour and space (texture with sculpture) are the 4 essential essences visual art can work with, but that hardly any contemporary artists actually 'paints' anymore, most of these essences have been discarded.
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
Dai Bach eh? 1) Are you a Welsh tribute band to Laibach? 2) One is tempted to make the joke, "Dai Bach and think of Wales" but I shall resist temptation.
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
Marita Hansen
|
|
|
|
Quote: sulcus, Thursday, 11 Feb 2010 22:02Quote: DaiBach, Thursday, 11 Feb 2010 21:30Sulcus, hello again. We used to disagree sometimes when I was David Powell. Sorry I am so late to this thread. You write:- Quote: If visual art has to rely on the written language, what is its purpose? Where is there any integrity of its own visual language. There isn't any. Modern art died not with Duchamp's urinal, but when Rene Magritte scrawled "Ceci n'est que une pipe" across his painting of a pipe. Quite. And you may be right. But "Ceci n'est qu'une pipe" means, of course, "This is only a pipe." Now, I'm afraid you got the French a bit wrong, Magritte wrote in fact, Ceci n'est pas une pipe." (This is not a pipe), which may not make a difference to you, but possibly did to Magritte. For those who haven't seen the picture it is an almost photographic representation of a smokers pipe, with the words written, quite neatly I thought, underneath it. And what Magritte was trying to do was to make the person who looked at the painting think more about the fact that is was not a 'pipe' but an image of a pipe. He was trying to draw people into the absurdity of seeing images as real things. Maybe he was being silly, stupid whatever, but it is a subject which constantly concerned him. And he was, when he chose to be, a fine 'traditional' painter, but felt he could use his gift to provoke a different way of looking at things. So that, in this case, was his purpose. So to say that 'modern art died' with this painting, does seem an extreme viewpoint, don't you think? Mind you, I agree about the pickled shark and the current heap of old clothes in Paris, but not Magritte, no. Hi David, firstly I am mortified that I got the French wrong, but not as mortified as my old French teacher Richard Fawcett would be were he to stalk YWO (which frankly I doubt). I was in top set too... Not only was it an image of a pipe, but one painted on a canvas, an image of an image if you will. Meta as they say in poncy literary circles. But it still only works through the linguistic pointing up of the conundrum. That was my point. Art needs to find an exclusively visual language (such as the Impressionists or the Cubists possessed) that can have it stand up in its own right. Of course, seeing as light , colour and space (texture with sculpture) are the 4 essential essences visual art can work with, but that hardly any contemporary artists actually 'paints' anymore, most of these essences have been discarded. There are a lot of contemporary artists out there who still paint (that includes me-it's my day job), but I see your POV as it is usually these wild displays that get most of the publicity, making everyone shake their head. Last year at the Waikato Art Awards (New Zealand) a pile of rubbish won first place (and a very good monetary prize). It made the news on TV and in the papers. Marita.
|
|
Carole
|
|
|
|
Yes, quite a lot of contemporary artists are painters: Chris Ofili and Howard Hodgkin won the Turner Prize, and other contenders were Peter Doig and Lucian Freud. Francis Bacon - painter, there are loads of others. Like Marita said, it's that media thing again, with the weirder stuff getting all the publicity. Peter Doig is a fantastic painter - but naturally the pile of rubbish would get mentioned instead. The thing is that you shouldn't just believe what you read in the papers about art - why not go and have a look at some and make your own mind up about it?
This post was last edited by Carole, 11 Feb 2010, 22:37
*
|
|
awrigley
|
|
|
|
Quote: Carole, Thursday, 11 Feb 2010 22:22Yes, quite a lot of contemporary artists are painters: Chris Ofili and Howard Hodgkin won the Turner Prize, and other contenders were Peter Doig and Lucian Freud. Francis Bacon - painter, there are loads of others. Like Marita said, it's that media thing again, with the weirder stuff getting all the publicity. Peter Doig is a fantastic painter - but naturally the pile of rubbish would get mentioned instead. A pile of rubbish as art is ultimately about entertainment. And entertainment is distraction from everyday cares. Maybe that is what modern art is about (distraction)? When the family is bored to distraction of the supermarket and each other by 1 pm on Saturday afternoon, stuffed full of fish and chips and swirls of ice cream by 1.15 pm, they can always go and look at some modern art and get some peace from the horror of being nobody. Maybe we could all learn something from that? We need to entertain and distract the reader. How about a pile of all our books? It might, or might not be art, and we would all be famous for 15 seconds. Andrew
Memory... What was that?
|
|
Carole
|
|
|
|
I bet there are some famous people out there longing for the 'horror of being a nobody'. Why is being a nobody a horror? Everybody is just an ant really. Once your anonymity (or however you spell it) is gone, it's gone. That's the real horror. NB: Modern art would probably ram home the horror of being a nobody, that's why nobody goes to see it. They all go home and watch the X Factor.
This post was last edited by Carole, 11 Feb 2010, 22:53
*
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
I visit galleries quite regularly with my sons. I am a big fan of abstract expressionism and cubism for example. I think Andrew rather than distraction, modern art is about commodity. It's a market that mirrors that of high financial investments - look at the role of Charles Saatchi for cornering and thereby creating the market for Emin, Hirst, Lucas et al. The market and their careers would not have existed without him. When he wants to make room in his collection, he sells them on to private buyers at the highest end of the wealth market. Art as investment. As inflated market commodities, little different to diamonds. Movements like Impressionism, Cubism etc genuinely extended human knowledge, because they used colour, space, texture and light to consider what the nature of seeing is. But they ran their course, just as Modernism (Joyce, Faulkner, Woolfe, Eliot etc) has run its experimental narrative course in literature. These two art forms now seem to have little fresh ways of seeing to offer any audience ( I would argue the potential case for literature, but on another thread maybe). Now it is only science that offers up new perceptions and ways of thinking. I am not saying the science is correct or anything other than partial, but the metaphors it offers to try and get to grips with something like quantum mechanics, is far more radical and creative than anything visual art or literature can seem to offer. The irony of course is that science presents it as fact, rather than imaginative art...
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
Pratchett Calls For Assisted Suicide Law
10 Feb 2010, 15:16
