Topic: Precociously Talented Artist

[GillE]

Art gallery fooled into showing work of a two-year-old

This report speaks volumes about what passes for 'art' nowadays.  I once tried to take a course at my local college because I wanted to learn how to draw.  However, the art department didn't teach drawing...

[Simon]

It seems that any old rubbish can be labelled as 'art' and they get away with it.  Didn't someone exhibit a dog turd on a piece of paper once?

[Clive]

It's what I've always suspected!   

[Rik]

Art, like fashion, is about a select few fooling the masses.

[daveeb]

It seems that any old rubbish can be labelled as 'art' and they get away with it.  Didn't someone exhibit a dog turd on a piece of paper once?

 

The burger vans in Blackpool have been giving art away for years
 

[Reno]

Did i ever mention that my other teaching certification was in art? 

The problem with art is that it's so subjective. Everyone has there opinion and nothing can be proven right or wrong. Its all about context.

[GillE]

There's nowt wrong with being an art teacher, Bob, so long as you teach techniques which will enable your pupils to create original work, as opposed to derivative.  Any art teacher who can do that is worth all the other art teachers put together.

[Reno]

If your looking for original work that little girls image fits the bill. There is just no substance behind it. Most of the time a museum will require the artist to make a general statement. They'll ask about what motivated them, a general history, and why they chose the medium they did. When a person understands the context he can get more out of the work then he would from just a quick glance.

That curator just wasn't doing his job. I'll admit there is a bunch of crap that passes for art these days. But, then again there are some great concepts that look like crap at first glance until their viewed in context.

[GillE]

I'm not looking for original work like that, no matter what the age of the person who produces it.

William Morris once said, "Have nothing in your homes that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful."  It's an exhortation that appeals to me.  Morris said nothing about a need to understand art, merely to have a perception of it.  I've always thought that beauty is something which should be appreciated, not analysed.  If you need to analyse it, you've lost sight of its purpose.

[Rik]

I'd agree with you, Gill, it applies equally to music. Once a piece needs to be explained to me it has failed. Art, in all its forms, should not be about intellect but emotion.

[Reno]

If all that was known of art were the pretty paintings from your local department store the world would get boring real quick. Variety is the spice of life. That's why new and unexpected ways of creating art are valued these days.

[Rik]

Not by everyone, Bob.

[Sandra]

I must admit that those Turner prize winning pices of art never do anything for me.
That Tracy "whoever she is" s**t stained bed was ridiculous to be picked as a winner. You could probably go into any students flat and see something as disgusting 

[GillE]

Did anyone see the television programme last weekend about the Greenhalghs?  They were a family in Bolton comprising a couple of OAPs and a middle aged son who replicated artwork which they sold to various institutions for hundreds of thousands.  The secret of their success wasn't the artwork itself but the way they created false provenances for it.  Of itself, the artwork wasn't anything special but the institutions paid small fortunes for the story behind it.

To my mind, this story illustrates the wisdom of separating artwork from its story or context.  Art should stand in it's own right, uncontaminated by its history.  Even if the art was created by an acclaimed artist or someone in Babylonia, unless it has intrinsic merit it is worthless.