Not Photoshopped, but then not photos...!

Byker28i said:
Interesting, what's the language of tables and chairs? Scandinavian?
Click to expand...

:)

I've got this thing in my head about how the way they're laid out tells you something about the situation. A simple example would be an executive type chair behind a desk with a simple, single chair in front of it.

Chairs in a circle suggest a meeting, possibly a counselling type situation.

A single armchair with stained arms suggests something else again.

Etc. etc. etc.
 
Interesting. Did you see the interior design show tonight. Worth watching on iplayer if not.
Ghost chair, gold painted rocking chair, interesting use of bay seating, with a 50's table and chair that didn't fit in the rest of the room. A home made desk and fancy chair.

Worth a look.

As for the ideas, I prefer the story, a hint, questioning, rather than tell the whole story.
 
Last edited:
So it's another pretty vs Art discussion

OK Gramps, & Simply Graham, lets try to progress this somewhat.

If you were asked to describe the following image, how would you?
serpentine-2_3116740b.jpg


Now how would you describe the narrative in the image, what's the story? Without a defined narrative, everybody relates the image based on their personal experiences. To you it might be pretentious crap, but why, what's your experience to declare it as such?

To someone else, say perhaps the victim of domestic violence, it could have a different meaning to say someone working in an Ikea warehouse.

I'd be interested in your feedback
 
Byker28i said:
Now how would you describe the narrative in the image, what's the story?
Click to expand...
It made me think of "Carrie", but then I'm struggling to relate it to any personal experience. I get your point though... had I been in an earthquake or something, I might find more meaning.

Isn't that moving away from what the artist is trying to say though, and kinda defeats the point? Reading through the article he is trying to portray the "harmony of ordinary objects." I think, without the artist there to lead me through it, or a decent leaflet handed out to explain it all I don't think I would get it. In fact if I was on my own in there I might start putting all the pieces back upright, as the artist's own cleaner did in his studio at home.

I like something that has some thought to it but, to be honest, if it gets to the point where well intentioned cleaners are throwing my work away, I might stop to re-assess the value of what I am doing...
 
TimmyG said:
Isn't that moving away from what the artist is trying to say though, and kinda defeats the point?
I think, without the artist there to lead me through it, or a decent leaflet handed out to explain it all I don't think I would get it.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting discussion point. Is the artists intention the only interpretation allowed? As for whether you would get it, it depends on if you immediately dismissed it as pretentious crap, or if you were open to considering what the artist was trying to portray.
 
My mum doesn't think it's art. "I told you to tidy your room!"

I think the point about uniqueness is the difference between 2 of those pictures on your wall. One from a printer. And one done by hand. At a distance they look identical. Close up you can probably see the difference. The hand painted one will only likely exist on your wall. The printed one could be on every wall in the country.

I'm not drawing any conclusions from that. But it's food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Right thread tidied up, no objections to art v anything debates, but can we ALL do it in a vaguely civil manner please and without getting personal with each other.

ETA: Sorry, also meant to add that if a post has been deleted that contained a relevant point, please feel free to reiterate it without the stomping on each others heads.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
That's an interesting discussion point. Is the artists intention the only interpretation allowed?
Click to expand...
Oh no, definitely not, but I think it should be prominent, or at least the point were you the viewer can start from. I think I would be really miffed if the artist had just come along, tipped a load of furniture over and went "Ta da!"

Byker28i said:
As for whether you would get it, it depends on if you immediately dismissed it as pretentious crap, or if you were open to considering what the artist was trying to portray.
Click to expand...
I think in most cases of this genre of work, you are expecting and therefore looking for further meaning. I try not to dismiss things out of hand, but in this world of information overload it can be difficult.(even if you spent a couple of hours in a modern gallery you wouldn't have time to study everything on display, and perhaps only get time to focus on the things that catch your eye). My own approach is to try to get a quick overview of what was the original objective, try to get an idea of the work that went into developing that idea and then I can appreciate the end result better. In that respect I think I am very much open to considering what the artist is saying, but obviously I reserve the right to still dismiss it as crap after all that.

Case in point, I heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago about an artist who had started a new "exhibition" where he had a big pile of hay in a room and he would spend the day climbing through it trying to find a needle that had been placed in it. He stated that it was a literal interpretation of the term "Finding a Needle in a Haystack" as being something that would be pointless or impossible. I immediately though that he hadn't done his research as that term isn't used in that way. If someone is lost at sea for example, you might describe trying to find them as like looking for a needle in a haystack, but it wouldn't be pointless or impossible, just very difficult. Now the artists wasn't a native English speaker, so maybe he had misinterpreted or perhaps a similar expression has different meaning in his mother tongue, but I immediately thought of it as a waste of time for all involved. It seemed to me to be something that could be dreamt up and arranged in a single afternoon, with little effort put into evolving the idea or coming up with a better way of interpreting it. In short I dismissed it as a piece of crap, but I think I was justified in doing so...

Edit: Oh here you go I found a link about it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...oking-for-a-needle-in-a-haystack-9859728.html

Personally I find stuff like this very condescending.
 
Last edited:
I believe that if art has a purpose it would be to connect with people. To make people think. When one sees various peoples interpretations on a piece of art one can see that it has achieved that, whether the interpretation is positive or negative doesn't matter, it has touched somebody.
I believe there are artists with great technical skill ( as illustrated in the original images) and those with lesser skill but perhaps more imagination. It doesnt take imagination to copy an image, no matter how technically perfect that may be. It certainly takes imagination to produce some of the more, lets say controversial pieces.
I like to be challenged, to interpret and evaluate art but I have to say that my own preference is for the more technically astute artist's work. My feelings, my opinion and no doubt not that of others who may themselves like to take the time to interpret what somebody is trying to say (or not) by placing a few items of furniture in a room in a random pattern. Personally that turns me away, I have no interest in it though by definition, once I react to it and call it crap it has served its purpose, it has connected. Im off now to try to find a sunset to photograph.
 
Byker28i said:
So it's another pretty vs Art discussion

OK Gramps, & Simply Graham, lets try to progress this somewhat.

If you were asked to describe the following image, how would you?
serpentine-2_3116740b.jpg


Now how would you describe the narrative in the image, what's the story? Without a defined narrative, everybody relates the image based on their personal experiences. To you it might be pretentious crap, but why, what's your experience to declare it as such?

To someone else, say perhaps the victim of domestic violence, it could have a different meaning to say someone working in an Ikea warehouse.

I'd be interested in your feedback
Click to expand...
It'll be alright until the cleaner goes in to put a brush round and stands them all up neatly against the wall.
 
No, more the idea that we need to be made aware of the mundane in such a way. As if we didn't know already! I don't know. This piece just seems particularly lazy and pretentious at the same time.
 
Why do these threads always seem to bring out the contentious, highly experimental conceptual art pieces, and then use them as examples of "art" to show how ludicrous it is. It would be like a classical musician posting a link to Jedward to show how crap popular music is.

It's just another example of people who know nothing about art trying to criticise it.
 
"its just another example of people who know nothing about art trying to criticise it".
Here we go again................
 
Simplythebeast said:
"its just another example of people who know nothing about art trying to criticise it".
Here we go again................
Click to expand...

The truth will out, as they say.

I wish I had a pound for every time someone who shoots birds on twigs makes a derogatory post about art though.
 
Probably because it's the conceptual art that people struggle most to understand.

I first started my degree course, the first book to read had Egglestons tricycle as the first image of the book. I struggled with that for a couple of years but when saw in context with the other images and start to read more into the image rather than instantly dismiss as 'I don't understand that, it's not pretty'.

eggleston-tricycle.jpg


Sold for half a million dollars. ;)

We could move onto this image if you like?
Low angle, centre frame, car to the right not cropped out as it would ruin the composition. Curves of the bike against the straight lines of the home behind.
Then there's the distressed look of the bike, the rust, abandoned, does that match the dead grass. Is this a comment on that part of america at the time. Are the red white and blue colours of the trike significant as Eggleston was using colour...

Why the low angle? To make the trike more significant or something else?
 
Last edited:
I'm finished with this argument to be honest. They don't, and can't understand. Period.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I wish I had a pound for every time someone who shoots birds on twigs makes a derogatory post about art though.
Click to expand...

Well I like shooting "birds on twigs" and I like "art" but unlike birds on twigs, (which are what they are), art is very subjective.
I have looked at and admired paintings and sculptures ... yes and photos ... and felt uplifted by the experience, then I look at something like Tracy Emin's "unmade bed" or the example here of 'downed' furniture and I feel appalled, defrauded.
Yes I would feel moved to make a derogatory post about it ... IMO they are shams to attract the foolish ... in my mind they have nothing to do with art and are more about the inadequate appealing to the gullible.
I think it is often fueled by the desire to produce something 'different' (another thread) and sadly just produces something shallow.
But as I say, it's subjective ... others feel inclined to "oh" and "ah" at such distractions, more fool them IMO.
 
" I wish I had a pound for every time someone who shoots birds on twigs makes a derogatory post about art though"
Oh dear. You know so little about any of those people yet you seem to think that for some reason their opinion counts for so much less than your own. Are you generalising about everyone who photographs birds? Are they all artisticly challenged or do they perhaps like to photograph birds regardless of their artistic knowlege or interest.
When an artist produces a piece of work is it only there to please or challenge the artisticly trained or can anyone have an opinion?
 
gramps said:
...I look at something like Tracy Emin's "unmade bed" or the example here of 'downed' furniture and I feel appalled, defrauded.
Yes I would feel moved to make a derogatory post about it ... IMO they are shams to attract the foolish ... in my mind they have nothing to do with art and are more about the inadequate appealing to the gullible.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer a photograph of an unmade bed? http://www.afterimagegallery.com/cunninghambed.htm
 
Birds on twigs are pi$$ easy to make pictures of. I got back into photography in Jan 2010 after a lay off of almost 30 years thorough wanting to take wildlife pictures like a few of my friends. I enjoyed it enormously, but within a few months I had a picture of 'a bird on a twig' (actually a whitethroat on rape flowers) picked from Flickr by Chris Packham as his pic of the week on Springwatch.

I gradually gave up photographing birds on twigs for anything other than amusement after that because the pictures are too easy. I don't mean technically easy (it's not actually all that sharp) but intellectually easy. It's all a matter of ticking the right boxes. Small bird, softish background, crop it to the third, result. There's no imagination required - only time, luck and a modicum of planning. If I want to spend a day in the countryside communing with nature these days I get my fishing rods out - it fulfils the same need.

Sure you can take nature photography to another level, but you have to devote your life to it and break away from the ordinary. I have a friend who does that, but he gets frustrated that the pictures he takes which sell best are the 'birds on sticks' pictures while his more ambitious pictures, the one he thinks (rightly) are his best work, hardly get a look in. It's the same with the hierarchy of species - kingfishers and otters at the top, sparrows and rats at the bottom.:D

If you enjoy taking photographs of birds on sticks, great.

I enjoy taking photographs of rubbish.

DJL_7423.jpg
 
A bird on a twig might be something for the cooking pot.
 
I thought we covered Emin's unmade bed in another of these art v pretty image debates.
Done at a low yet turning point in her life, a very personal portrait of where she was at the time. Tells you a lot about the dark place she was in

Been reading a lot about semiotics recently.

Bird on a stick - documentary image, recording the moment, the details. Perfectly valid if that's the purpose, equally so if that's your intention to obtain such a picture. It's not however as interesting to 'an outsider' as say a kingfisher diving, a robin catching a caterpillar as examples say, that decisive moment captured.

Art, especially conceptual art is challenging. Some i don't get at all, some I find challenging, but I've learnt not to instantly dismiss but to think more about the intentions, the meanings. A pretty picture is attractive, it ticks the box in the head that says 'that's nice', but thats it. 'Art' can force the old grey cells to have a little more workout.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's just another example of people who know nothing about art trying to criticise it.
Click to expand...
You don't need to "know about art" to know whether you like something or not. If the art piece is any good people will like it without having had to study something.
In fact it is important that people don't have to be an "insider". Of course, you cant hob-nob with other insiders. Some people get off on that. But it's not for everyone. It really sounds like snobbery. Think of the Masons. Some really want to be part of it, while others detest clique-ism and want to stay well away.
In many ways, the less you have studied, the more unbiased you can be. And free to make your own mind up. If I don't like something then there is nothing wrong with criticising something. It's my opinion. If you have a different opinion, it is not somehow superior to my opinion. Sneering at peoples opinions does not look good.

It would be perhaps helpful if you could explain to us what things we should know, so that we might change our opinions. And help us appreciate things that we clearly disrespect at the moment. Give it a try.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
You don't need to "know about art" to know whether you like something or not. If the art piece is any good people will like it without having had to study something.
In fact it is important that people don't have to be an "insider". Of course, you cant hob-nob with other insiders. Some people get off on that. But it's not for everyone. It really sounds like snobbery. Think of the Masons. Some really want to be part of it, while others detest clique-ism and want to stay well away.
In many ways, the less you have studied, the more unbiased you can be. And free to make your own mind up. If I don't like something then there is nothing wrong with criticising something. It's my opinion. If you have a different opinion, it is not somehow superior to my opinion. Sneering at peoples opinions does not look good.

It would be perhaps helpful if you could explain to us what things we should know, so that we might change our opinions. And help us appreciate things that we clearly disrespect at the moment. Give it a try.
Click to expand...
You might not need to "know about art" to decide whether you like something or not on a basic, reflexive, level. I don't think anyone's arguing that you do. But studying and understanding art - the importance of tropes, styles, themes, contexts, etc - can help you understand and appreciate things you might not necessarily "like" on a purely aesthetic level.
I don't think it's true that "the less you have studied, the more unbiased you can be". This kind of attitude usually comes from an ill-informed anti-academic position, where it's assumed that academia and study is all about being told the answers to questions, or being told "what to think". It's not. Academia encourages familiarisation with a huge gamut of opinion and demands critical analysis of both one's own opinions and the opinions that have gone before, as well as understanding and recognising pertinence. Academia should represent the systematic exclusion of bias.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
In many ways, the less you have studied, the more unbiased you can be.
Click to expand...

I'd say the reverse applies if you have been educated to think for yourself. If you haven't studied a subject your opinions will probably be based on those of your peers who most likely also haven't studied it either.

I've know people who thought cricket is slow and boring to come to love the sport once they begin to understand and appreciate the subtleties and nuances of the game. It can be the same with art if people would give it a chance instead of dismissing it as pretentious crap.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I've know people who thought cricket is slow and boring to come to love the sport once they begin to understand and appreciate the subtleties and nuances of the game. It can be the same with art if people would give it a chance instead of dismissing it as pretentious crap.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I've heard that about people watching paint dry! :D
 
ghoti said:
You might not need to "know about art" to decide whether you like something or not on a basic, reflexive, level. I don't think anyone's arguing that you do. But studying and understanding art - the importance of tropes, styles, themes, contexts, etc - can help you understand and appreciate things you might not necessarily "like" on a purely aesthetic level.
I don't think it's true that "the less you have studied, the more unbiased you can be". This kind of attitude usually comes from an ill-informed anti-academic position, where it's assumed that academia and study is all about being told the answers to questions, or being told "what to think". It's not. Academia encourages familiarisation with a huge gamut of opinion and demands critical analysis of both one's own opinions and the opinions that have gone before, as well as understanding and recognising pertinence. Academia should represent the systematic exclusion of bias.
Click to expand...
If you don't like something and wish to criticise it, go ahead. It's the sneering at other people's opinion's that looks bad.
Ed Sutton said:
I've know people who thought cricket is slow and boring to come to love the sport once they begin to understand and appreciate the subtleties and nuances of the game.
Click to expand...
I like the cricket analogy. But some people my prefer action sports and some may prefer slow games. I like art at face value. The visual impression. Having barriers in the way to the appreciation is the opposite to what I like. My way is not less valid than someone else's way.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
If you don't like something and wish to criticise it, go ahead. It's the sneering at other people's opinion's that looks bad.
Click to expand...
I don't see any sneering here.
I don't even see anyone saying it's wrong to like things on a purely reflexive, aesthetic level. Because, of course, it's not wrong.
I do see people who know what they're talking about (not me, I'm very much new to thinking about art academically) expressing frustration at the reactionary "emperor's new clothes" nonsense, at the refusal to even attempt to engage while still wanting to criticise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top