Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
as in painting, drawing and all that?
i know absolutely fuck all about it but love stuff like ralph steadman -http://tinyurl.com/d8e656y and with more "street" art stuff i love phlegm's stuff - http://tinyurl.com/cb3qq25
there's also some decent street art stuff in glasgow at the minute, primarily by bullet beard - http://tinyurl.com/cksan6z and http://tinyurl.com/cca8szt
so aye talk about art, finger-painting or don't....
show me examples of art you like?
not just those 4
things that made people have to adopt an uncomfortable position. also he used to film himself squeezing downs corridors that were too narrow and then he used to make things like this that people could actually go in. the smaller cell inside is only about half a foot smaller then the bigger one. it's a really tight squeeze but you can go in and all the way round but it kind of hurts a bit.
i like stuff like this too
the pictures of cats much less so
I'm glad I didn't but yeah. I like his Postcards Records kitty.
"got" it. Paintings are nice to look at but unless there's an accompanied annotation or a piece by someone like Andrew Graham Dixon I'm lost nearly all of the time.
I really enjoy going to galleries and learning about art, but I think accompanying works with a decent amount of info about the artist, the context of the work, and interpretations of it would make the entire thing so much more accessible. Sure it's great to look and draw your own conclusions, but there's nothing to stop you doing that by providing the info as well.
(not sure if that's actually an opinion I hold or not, it is a thought I've had though)
Bosch - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights
Spent way too much time in there when I went.
It's good stuff.
Favourite gallery is the Bargello sculpture gallery in Florence, though the National Gallery is amazing and free and quite frankly everyone in this country should be bloody proud of it.
there's so much of his stuff about in sheffield.
idk if it's too obvious for you jumped up virgins but my fav artist is probably giorgio de chirico
max ernst is cool too
some of the nordic longboat stuff he does is insane
is MY go-to guy. Anyone a fan?
which is something that I struggle with writing for an arts magazine! But yeah, I really love public art as it makes more sense to me, especially that which is integrated into architecture, such as William Mitchell murals.
I only really like contemporary stuff otherwise, although I did fall in love with the moose in this painting in the Hunterian Gallery in Glasgow at the weekend, he had sucha lovely face but that's totally lost in this picture of it http://bit.ly/RSs5Uf
The Alasdair Gray exhibit at GOMA is bloody wonderful, and I'm really enjoying all the Liverpool Biennial work.
i don't like alasdair gray's stuff at all
go see it (the moose I mean). I was only in there because I loved the building and the doors inside and most of the stuff wasn't really doing it for me art wise but then this lovely little moose just grabbed my attention and I stood grinning at it for a few minutes <3
then you can see his little sad face. I love you little moose.
do they still have the pickled penis in a jar?
JFC. No, I didn't see it anyway. It was all enlightment type stuff. They had a cool sculpture out in the courtyard but I couldn't get out there.
were the last thing to blow my tiny little mind
My father is a fairly well renowned collector, so I've grown up around some amazing pieces. I ought to know a lot more than I do though. I'd love to do an evening class or something.
as i didn't really consider how off-putting galleries can be
there's a graffiti gallery in glasgow which in theory should be great but the few times i've been in it's seemed pretty cliquey and it definitely put me off going back
rather than shoved under inaccessible railway bridges is a pure shite idea*
*i appreciate it goes against all the purist graffiti principles or whatever but i just wanted to be able to actually see the stuff before it was either removed or painted over
In my experience graffiti makes more sense outside. When you bring it into a gallery it tends to attract yer graphic designer, pay-a-million-pounds-for-a-bit-of-wall type bores. It makes it very clean and safe and the more interesting graffiti artists i know are into the 'danger' of it, for want of a better word. It's like commisioned graffiti, you rarely see anything as interesting as what you can see down a backstreet in Hulme or whatever
I saw some Banksy mugs and saucers on holiday this summer. Really irked me for some reason, almost as much as Samantha Cameron giving Michelle Obama a graffiti piece as a present.
That's not really your point, sorry.
putting graffiti into a gallery often destroys it totally. Context is really important, take something off the street and it reads totally differently. It might just be me but i'm also a lot harsher on graffiti style stuff that's not been created under time restraints and other outdoors pressures. Once your making something in your studio and not the street its really got to stand up against fine artists i terms of quality and finish etc
i agree it makes more sense outside but i also don't think it's a bad idea to give folk who are into it a central hub to display stuff that's more accessible too
plus this gallery in particular is adjacent to a lane which allows the artists to spay the walls and shit rather than "framing" stuff
This guy i know who does graffiti does more fine art stuff as well, before he started doing an art course and he was just painting on walls and stuff he used to say he was a vandal not an artist. Then people starting telling him his stuff was good (it is, it's great) and he started an art foundation course but instead of his graf stuff he does more 'proper' art, which is fine, but none of it is nearly as good as the stuff he does when he's got his trackies on and he's had a can of cider for breakfast and fucked off down some train line in Salford with a tin of paint
Is it proper street art?
it's about two doors up from the woodside social club
most galleries are just not comfortable or inviting places to enjoy some art. though there are a few i like. whitechapel's prob my fave in london.
it wasnt for me.
1 night a week. We've had 2 sessions and it's been really insightful, giving me more of an understanding of why 20th century art happened the way that it did (how it developed into abstract) and also social context. I think the Tate Modern is a good place to start, the first place I felt 'connected' with art.
then Turner. Always Turner.
Mondrian (Especially the name of this piece 'Broadway Boogie Woogie)
van Gogh's Prisoners Exercising
I really love him. He paints like he's got nothing else left, big furious strokes and great use of light. I always imagine him working in some kind of frenzy.
I loved his use of colour too.
really muted yet rich
Saw something of theirs (I think...) at the Pompidou last year, where they'd inverted male artists and changed their gender to female- 'La Corbusier', 'Jackie Pollock' etc, which I thought was quite clever.
here is some stuff i like off the top of my head
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/aipe/imgs/hume/CS25_0006_Hume_OH_GCR.jpg doesn't really work in reproduction to be honest
that's soap and pubic hair
michael craig martin
loads of stuff - its all good. I mostly like kindof post pop art i think. There is a LOT of bullshit written about it which i think puts people off and i don't think the obscene amounts of money thrown about helps its image.
if you just view it as looking at cool things then that's when it works best i think.
really don't like him, but I get what he's trying to do. It just feels so kitschy and unpleasant and he's got all the patter of a used car salesman alongside. I mean, maybe I'm MEANT to be a bit revolted by it. I just find him odd.
but i kindof see his work as following the same line of enqiry as warhol, that of being a mirror to society.
I get a weird mix of cynicism and naivety coming from koons work, like he is equally disgusted and delighted by his subjects. I might be totally misreading it all, but that s what i pick up on it from and it's a world view that i tend to agree with.
Massive fan of Michael Craig Martin
Georg Grosz- http://arthistory.about.com/od/dada/ig/Dada-at-MoMA---
de Chirico- http://theunobtainium.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/giorgio-de-chirico.html
that isnt even de chirico
ico is a great game though
I used to be into graffiti in my younger days, not now though. I still like looking at it but am not a fan of the street art stencil political satire stuff.
As for more conventional art it's interesting seeing the world famous classics in places like Rome and Paris but not really a fan of modern stuff.
In summary - I'm not sure.
unfortunately most of his stuff looks like bad copies of what mad magazine did about 50 years ago, infinitely better
they were great, spelling all over the place.
'Too many paintings- good paintings- put colours where there do not need to be colours'.
He isn't wrong.
Giuseppe Arcimboldo is pretty cool
Jean Debuffet- http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/jean-dubuffet/grand-maitre-of-the-outsider-1947
and Henry Darger- http://jooyoungchoi.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/henry-darger-had-a-posse/
do you critically analyse while your looking and think about technique and whatever else?
normally I just think about whether it's bitchen or not. when I hear people talking pretentiously in art galleries I intentionally say stupid shit really loudly.
Like if I see a picture of a dog doing something awesome I'm going to like it because it's a picture of a dog doing something awesome. I'm never comfortable equating that with judging/appreciating/connecting with art though for whatever reason.
part i don't think about, it's literally a case of when i look at it does it make me think "that's cool i'd like to see more by that artist"
*delete as appropriate
loving art on a purely superficial basis is totally ok. but art can also have various levels of complexity (cultural, canonical, influence, political, emotional...) worth considering/discussing.
all of that aside, even chatting about tenuous emotional responses can be interesting and open up new ways of seeing, or apparently unrelated ideas.
even you feeling the need to apt a jokey detachment in response to someone else's response is a response of sorts to the work itself. RESPONSE.
But I can't escape the naggling feeling that it's something of a misnomer though which has the unwanted outcome of making the average joe feel stupid.
Like if I react to something by thinking it's worthless (which may or may not be a valid response, I don't know) then it can be justified as that reaction in itself validates something's existence? It seems inescapably paradoxical to me in a way that doesn't sit comfortably.
it's an attitude that only seems to apply to art. if you think something is proper shit then that's fine, it's not for you.
you wouldn't work yourself up into a parodoxical tiss if you thought that 'friends' was rubbish.
Make me want to cut people that it's still shown and people still watch it
But it's a view which is perpetuated in the art world and the motivations of that are interesting to me. It seems to me (in an admittedly uneducated way) that there's almost some kind of societal/intellectual obligation to appreciate/react to art that obviously isn't there when it comes to the Friends of this world therefore you get this daft attitutde of *at least you've reacted to it and that's the point* when someone doesn't like something.
and i get where it comes from. Loads of art movements traditionally are kindof reactive to whats gone before and contextually are pretty confrontational. In that sense negative reactions were valid as they would illustrate an attitude that the artwork was against but once those arguments have kindof been worked through, which fro the most part they have, then i think its fine to just go 'i think that looks a bit shit'.
If an artist is looking for a particular reaction that they get but in a more knowing way does that invalidate the reaction?
Like if that guy who defaced the Rothko was looking for people to react by thinking he's a tit does the fact people are now educated enough to know he's trying to get people to think he's a tit but still think he's a tit for looking for that reaction validate the whole debacle?
I have no idea what I've just written, sorry everyone.
fuck the art establishment and like what you want for whatever reason
that defacing rothko guy, i don't know what he's trying to achieve. i don't think that's any validity in his cations really, there's no artistry or point is there?
but thinking of rothko here's an example. so when rothko and the other abstract impressionists were around they were doing stuff like this
and it's all 'LOOK AT MY SOUL ON THE CANVAS' blah blah, all kind of deep and shit, and at the time that's(broadly speaking) what ART is - that's the accepted language is and what being a painter is, in your studio being all tormented and then making your 'epic' works and then probably having a cry.
so that's all kicking off and then warhol and lichenstein and that lot pop up and are all like
and everyone's like 'um, dudes, where's like your souls and your angst and all that' and they do actually have a reaction (if you belive the history books) that's based on having their sensibilities and ideas offended.
I don't think that really happens now, I'm sure it can do but for the most part i don't think people see things that actually attack their ideas about stuff, we're in this weird post-post-modernism stage where anything goes, having a 'that's a bit shit' reaction is usually just that as opposed to some butting up of ideas and philosophies.
BLAH HHHHHHHHHHHHH BALH BLAH
But I enjoyed reading it, thanks :)
just for some reason people talking (or attempting) to critically analyse art while in an art gallery grates on me massively . nowadays it makes me think of Michael Sheen in Midnight in Paris or something
maybe when I'm actually looking at something, without any of those contexts (or even sometimes with them), my main response is emotional, which is difficult to break down rationally, and hence annoys me when other people try
My favourite artists are:
vincent van gogh
my first real talent/interest was art, and I just ended up leaving it behind. but I've been rethinking some ideas that I had in my brief, uneventful few months at art college before my mum got ill and we had to move back up north, and I really think they have potential.
gonna buy a sketchbook on Friday and work at them.