Taking FdA or BA Photography course!!!

[Mr Badger]

Nipping back to the subject of art for a moment: As for some of the interpretations of what the artist was 'saying', this amuses me and I sometimes wonder what the artist really thinks of it... I wonder how many times they've thought - "I wasn't thinking that at all, but it makes me look very intellectual so I'll say nothing and go with it!".

 

[Byker28i]

End of year Student exhibitions are quite interesting as it show you what other students are being taught.
I used to blog as part of my documentation for my course, you're actively encouraged to do this. After writing reflections on exhibitions, I quite often was contacted by the artist thanking me or offering further explanation.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Nipping back to the subject of art for a moment: As for some of the interpretations of what the artist was 'saying', this amuses me and I sometimes wonder what the artist really thinks of it... I wonder how many times they've thought - "I wasn't thinking that at all, but it makes me look very intellectual so I'll say nothing and go with it!".

I'm sure it's a part of 'accidental art'.

 

[Byker28i]

I'm sure it's a part of 'accidental art'.

yeah but we've all taken photos like that...camera moving on the tripod on shots of bluebells because you didn't tighten it properly, so motion blurred - meant that

 

[ancient_mariner]

yeah but we've all taken photos like that...camera moving on the tripod on shots of bluebells because you didn't tighten it properly, so motion blurred - meant that

I had more in mind the explanation given by a member of the public for a piece of 'art' might be considered slightly objet trouve and added to the piece for the benefit of the artist.

 

[Byker28i]

I had more in mind the explanation given by a member of the public for a piece of 'art' might be considered slightly objet trouve and added to the piece for the benefit of the artist.

There are times you wonder if the artist put more effort into the descriptive piece to accompany the artwork

 

[MidnightUK]

This is actually an intimate portrait of the lowest point of her life, where she woke up one morning with the realisation that she'd hit rock bottom

No, she hit rock bottom when she decided to exploit the weak minded and gullible by selling this self absorbed rubbish to them for vast sums of money.

 

[Phil V]

No, she hit rock bottom when she decided to exploit the weak minded and gullible by selling this self absorbed rubbish to them for vast sums of money.

Wow. You take cynicism to an art form.

Tell me... is it that easy for any of us unknown ‘artists’ to just create some self absorbed rubbish to sell for vast sums of Money?

Could you post an example if your work that earned you all the money? Surely if it’s that easy you’ve done it.

 

[Byker28i]

No, she hit rock bottom when she decided to exploit the weak minded and gullible by selling this self absorbed rubbish to them for vast sums of money.

Quite a good example of why art based courses aren't for everyone, especially the narrow minded.

Funny - I thought I'd explained it quite well. Best we don't move onto Grayson Perry then, although the Reith Lectures he did in 2013 were very interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sj965

Tell you what - I've a copy of Susie Hodges - Why your 5 year old could not have done that

Why Your 5 Year Old Could Not Have Done That is Susie Hodges passionate and persuasive argument against the most common disparaging remark levelled at modern art. In this enjoyable and thought-provoking book, she examines 100 works of modern art that have attracted critical and public hostility from Cy Twomblys scribbled Olympia (1957), Jean-Michel Basquiats crude but spontaneous LNAPRK (1982), to the apparently careless mess of Tracey Emins My Bed (1998) and explains how, far from being negligible novelties, they are inspired and logical extensions of the ideas of their time.


She explains how such notorious works as Carl Andres Equivalent VIII (1966) the infamous bricks occupy unique niches in the history of ideas, both showing influences of past artists and themselves influencing subsequent artists. With illustrations of works from Hans Arp to Adolf Wolfli, Hodge places each work in its cultural context to present an unforgettable vision of modern art.


This book will give you an understanding of the ways in which modern art differs from the realistic works of earlier centuries, transforming as well as informing your gallery visits for years to come.
https://www.nationalgallery.co.uk/p...have-done-that-modern-art-explained/p_1035520


Happy to send you it for a read if you:
a. Promise you'll read it, not skim it
b. Send it back

 

[Ed Sutton]

Quite a good example of why art based courses aren't for everyone, especially the narrow minded.

Funny - I thought I'd explained it quite well. Best we don't move onto Grayson Perry then, although the Reith Lectures he did in 2013 were very interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sj965

Tell you what - I've a copy of Susie Hodges - Why your 5 year old could not have done that

Why Your 5 Year Old Could Not Have Done That is Susie Hodges passionate and persuasive argument against the most common disparaging remark levelled at modern art. In this enjoyable and thought-provoking book, she examines 100 works of modern art that have attracted critical and public hostility from Cy Twomblys scribbled Olympia (1957), Jean-Michel Basquiats crude but spontaneous LNAPRK (1982), to the apparently careless mess of Tracey Emins My Bed (1998) and explains how, far from being negligible novelties, they are inspired and logical extensions of the ideas of their time.


She explains how such notorious works as Carl Andres Equivalent VIII (1966) the infamous bricks occupy unique niches in the history of ideas, both showing influences of past artists and themselves influencing subsequent artists. With illustrations of works from Hans Arp to Adolf Wolfli, Hodge places each work in its cultural context to present an unforgettable vision of modern art.


This book will give you an understanding of the ways in which modern art differs from the realistic works of earlier centuries, transforming as well as informing your gallery visits for years to come.
https://www.nationalgallery.co.uk/p...have-done-that-modern-art-explained/p_1035520


Happy to send you it for a read if you:
a. Promise you'll read it, not skim it
b. Send it back

You're wasting your time.

 

[StephenM]

You're wasting your time.

Optimism says you're wrong; experience suggests you're correct

There's an old couplet

a man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still

The will can be stronger than reason; our assumptions (even ones we are unaware of) control the conclusions we reach. Many years ago I was reading a maths book, and I reacted unfavourably when the author proved that 2 plus 2 did NOT equal 4. He'd started with an "obviously" correct description of what integers were, and then proceeded from that obvious definition to show that 2+2 = 3.99999 (recurring). NOT 4. He was of course correct; the starting point he had used inevitably lead to that result. Some 50 years or so ago a theologian named Cornelius van Til argued that traditional Christian apologetics was flawed because it attempted to start with the presuppositions of the unbeliever; and these were such that the argument was lost before it even began. Two examples from different disciplines to illustrate that our starting points determine where we end up.

 

[simon ess]

As predictable as the planets in their course; as constant as the Northern star.

I am, indeed, feeble minded and gullible.

Some bloke on the interweb said so.

 

[sirch]

No, she hit rock bottom when she decided to exploit the weak minded and gullible by selling this self absorbed rubbish to them for vast sums of money.

I've often found that multi-millionaires (the sort of people who have vast sums of money to spend on art) are weak minded and gullible. I’d much rather be strong minded, astute and poor.

 

[Ed Sutton]

a man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still

Round here we say, "You can't educate pork."

 

[ancient_mariner]

Optimism says you're wrong; experience suggests you're correct

There's an old couplet

a man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still

The will can be stronger than reason; our assumptions (even ones we are unaware of) control the conclusions we reach. Many years ago I was reading a maths book, and I reacted unfavourably when the author proved that 2 plus 2 did NOT equal 4. He'd started with an "obviously" correct desription of what integers were, and then proceeded from that obvious definition to show that 2+2 = 3.99999 (recurring). NOT 4. He was of course correct; the starting point he had used inevitably lead to that result. Some 50 years of so ago a theologian named Cornelius van Til argued that traditional Christian apologetics was flawed because it attempted to start with the presuppositions of the unbeliever; and these were such that the argument was lost before it even began. Two examples from different disciplines to illustrate that our starting points determine where we end up.

And this nicely explains why the 2 sides can't meet.

Side 1 knows art is fake, marketing, emperors new clothes etc and has only imaginary value.
Side 2 knows it's a means of expression and of communication and is inherently of value (even the bad stuff).

Like the argument about what 2 + 2 equals, both sides are correct.

 

[simon ess]

There are some genres of photography, much loved and much admired, that I think are utterly pointless s***e.

What I don't do is post in threads about those genres spouting my opinions...constantly.

Yet it seems that some people think it's ok to do that in any thread about art.

Funny old world, eh!

 

[Phil V]

There are some genres of photography, much loved and much admired, that I think are utterly pointless s***e.

What I don't do is post in threads about those genres spouting my opinions...constantly.

Yet it seems that some people think it's ok to do that in any thread about art.

Funny old world, eh!

I’ve posted almost this exact sentiment before...

Birds, landscapes hold no interest, likewise I’m not interested in a Sony or Nikon camera, so I don’t visit those threads.

I have been told that I’m unusual because I consider that kind of negative behaviour strange.

 

[MidnightUK]

Wow. You take cynicism to an art form.

Tell me... is it that easy for any of us unknown ‘artists’ to just create some self absorbed rubbish to sell for vast sums of Money?

Could you post an example if your work that earned you all the money? Surely if it’s that easy you’ve done it.

Whats cynical about looking at a situation objectively?

I think the biggest difficulty of selling rubbish to the very well off is not 'the sell' but getting access to the market. Having some kind of 'harrowing' backstory helps as it gathers sympathy for the artist and feeds into the classic 'emotionally or financially struggling artist trying to reach the world against the odds' or 'harrowing past being expressed with profound emotion' tropes - if you can claim some kind of personal redemption in the process all the better. The traditional art market is known to be very curated, so you need the right access to the right contacts in it to get into galleries and exhibitions.

Some years back I saw a painting, really very nice, being assessed on a TV show. If it was found to be by some named famous artist they said it would sell for millions. If it was by the artists pupil they would be lucky to get a few thousand for it. Yet it was still the same painting, still the same quality with the same image depicted. Nothing changed except the egotism of the possible buyers. Sell the sizzle, not the sausage itself.

Art is so very often not about talent, but about belief and social acceptance and of course profit, as much of modern art trading is about investment only. If 'the right people' believe in an artist and public ally praise them, then many people who do not want to loose face, look ignorant or not feel part of the right crowd by default tend to also claim that artist or an individual artwork is brilliant. It also helps if you have bought work from that artist and then want to push the price of your investment up. Some of the photographs by Gursky are good examples of poor art being talked and manipulated up into selling for money they are never worth when viewed against actual talent/skills.

Anther example, this year I visited a shared gallery show of local amateur photographers, as it was a local small time show, subject and photography standards varied hugely. One of the exhibitors was concentrating on interiors of derelict buildings. I have seen on the internet and in published books really interesting and amazing Urbex photos. Some by natural light, some in locations only really good light painting or flash work. Its a competitive field of photography and therefore result standards can be very high. For some difficult locations artificial lighting techniques need to be very skilled to make a good shot. The sample urbex photos I viewed in the exhibition were not of this standard. Frankly anyone with a camera phone could have wandered to a roofless derelict factory and taken them stood in the doorway. I have no objection at all to the photographers style or results, my issue is actually with how the art world works. I was recently told (if the info I have been given is correct) that this same photographer has been offered an exhibition in a large well known and respected city gallery. I have been told this has come about because someone with 'status' has been pushing for this as a patron of the photographer and they have the right contacts. What makes me sad is that the work of said photographer is so average in comparison to so much of the work Urbex you can see. There are very talented people who will never get anywhere due to not having the right contacts no matter how hard they try and by not knowing how to market themselves in the traditional art world - how to market themselves as artists to the right patrons. For it is more about marketing the person than the art.

The traditional art world is sad, because its who you know, plus how you sell your personal 'backstory' to best effect and not so much about what you can actually do.

Re Phils last comment about "post an example if your work that earned you all the money? Surely if it’s that easy you’ve done it." I would feel ashamed if I had sold the bed and rubbish around it to anyone at all. For me to personally sell such a thing I would have to be utterly desperate financially or utterly ruthless. As you will also see from earlier in this reply, I think entering the high price art world is far from easy for highly talented people, which I am not myself.

 

[StephenM]

Whats cynical about looking at a situation objectively?

Probably nothing - I can't really be bothered to go into all the ramifications of that statement. But I did pick up several places in your post where you weren't being objective, insofar as you'd started with certain assumptions that made your conclusion certain. As I said in an earlier post, given your unstated (and possibly even unconscious) assumptions and biases, there isn't really any other conclusion you can reach.

Others will differ.

 

[Phil V]

Whats cynical about looking at a situation objectively?

Everything that followed this ^.

And obviously you could make a fortune selling rubbish, but you wouldn’t lower yourself

I sleep well at night knowing I could be rich too, but I choose to work my b****x off for a pittance instead

I’ll say again, if you’ve no interest in art, why pollute art threads with your half arsed ill conceived rubbish?

It shows a very strange personality IMHO.

 

[MidnightUK]

I guess what we are talking of here is the difference between Education and Training. I think the OP wants a training course, which a BTEC/HNC/HND might offer but would be better delivered in a series of 121 workshop sessions on specific topics of interest. Education is about learning to learn, acquiring knowledge, rather than practical skills.

I see no reason at all why both cannot be combined, other than by the limited skill set of those teaching.
I wonder if it is still trailing on from ancient snobbery of Universities over Polytechnics, where having ability/skills was beneath the educated (ultimately, the rich bask in knowing that they 'know' while the poorer do the actual creation of something)?

Going to graduation shows should be considered essential preparation for any prospective student.
However it is not exactly encouraged by many institutions.
It is also helpful to speak to the graduating students.

No other massive investment would be made with so little investigation, as when signing up for a degree course.
It is the largest intangible investment most people ever makes in life, and it is made with out the slightest Idea what any return might be.

A majority of students do benefit in some way, but it is rarely in the way they might have expected or planned for.

This, totally. Its also not so good to be a UK/EU born student learning in the UK, as non EU students get the best support, they bring in the most money from high course fees - no university wants them to go home and talk down the university, so everything is done to prioritise the welfare of them above others.

There are times you wonder if the artist put more effort into the descriptive piece to accompany the artwork

No kidding.

Quite a good example of why art based courses aren't for everyone, especially the narrow minded.

So people of different views to yourself are narrowminded, while you are broadminded and correct?

This narrow minded person actually goes to quite a lot of exhibitions, some of which have some excellent art in, some of which have some **** art in. I also went to both the recent Grayson Perry exhibitions that were touring - I like some of his stuff, other bits are not for me. He comes across as a potentially interesting man in the bits and pieces I have encountered about him as a person.

I like to view art works as individual pieces, much as I do novels. Some I like, some I dislike but can see value in, some are a waste of space for me personally. I saw some sketches by Tracy Emin some while back and thought them interesting, but that does not preclude me from thinking her bed is total rubbish. Generally I follow the art piece, not the artist.

 

[MidnightUK]

Everything that followed this ^.

And obviously you could make a fortune selling rubbish, but you wouldn’t lower yourself

I sleep well at night knowing I could be rich too, but I choose to work my b****x off for a pittance instead

I’ll say again, if you’ve no interest in art, why pollute art threads with your half arsed ill conceived rubbish?

It shows a very strange personality IMHO.

Wow, this is so incredibly rude and hostile. Its OK for you to be so hostile just because I dont like the art that you do and am willing to say I dont like it? Really ???

Probably nothing - I can't really be bothered to go into all the ramifications of that statement. But I did pick up several places in your post where you weren't being objective, insofar as you'd started with certain assumptions that made your conclusion certain. As I said in an earlier post, given your unstated (and possibly even unconscious) assumptions and biases, there isn't really any other conclusion you can reach.

I guess I really upset some people here by just disliking what they like. Stick to the 'accepted', tow the line, no thinking, no views of ones own allowed here!

 

[Byker28i]

So people of different views to yourself are narrowminded, while you are broadminded and correct?

Nope but your statement 'No, she hit rock bottom when she decided to exploit the weak minded and gullible by selling this self absorbed rubbish to them for vast sums of money.' does show a usual tendency of the narrow minded, those who aren't prepared to think more or even listen to an explanation. Art is subjective, one doesn't expect everyone to like the same stuff but the straight dismissiveness usually shown is a shame.
I didn't call you narrow minded, I said your statement was a good example. You obviously meant it to be provocative.

This narrow minded person actually goes to quite a lot of exhibitions, some of which have some excellent art in, some of which have some **** art in. I also went to both the recent Grayson Perry exhibitions that were touring - I like some of his stuff, other bits are not for me. He comes across as a potentially interesting man in the bits and pieces I have encountered about him as a person.

I like to view art works as individual pieces, much as I do novels. Some I like, some I dislike but can see value in, some are a waste of space for me personally. I saw some sketches by Tracy Emin some while back and thought them interesting, but that does not preclude me from thinking her bed is total rubbish. Generally I follow the art piece, not the artist.

Nice - I'm not always sure about Graysons pots, quite liked his recent TV programs exploring people, attitudes etc.

 

[john.margetts]

I guess I really upset some people here by just disliking what they like. Stick to the 'accepted', tow the line, no thinking, no views of ones own allowed here!

There is a profound difference between not liking something and posting drivel about what you do not like.

I do not like Tracy Emin's bed installation and I am quite happy to tell anyone interested that I do not like it and why but I do not descend into insulting nonsense such as "she decided to exploit the weak minded and gullible". It is insulting because my Bestbeloved really likes this particular work and you just called her weak minded and gullible (she is neither) without bothering to get to know her. You also have no way of knowing what was in Tracy's mind when she produced that (or any other) work, so doubly insulting.

You are welcome to your opinions but if you want your opinions to be treated with respect you need to have opinions that are worthy of respect.

 

[droj]

if you have a vision, but you need to learn the technical stuff to make that vision a reality, you'll have much much better results than someone who knows what every button does but they dont really know what to do with all the technical freedom they have

I think this worth repeating!

 

[myotis]

I see no reason at all why both cannot be combined, other than by the limited skill set of those teaching.
I wonder if it is still trailing on from ancient snobbery of Universities over Polytechnics, where having ability/skills was beneath the educated (ultimately, the rich bask in knowing that they 'know' while the poorer do the actual creation of something)?

This, totally. Its also not so good to be a UK/EU born student learning in the UK, as non EU students get the best support, they bring in the most money from high course fees - no university wants them to go home and talk down the university, so everything is done to prioritise the welfare of them above others.

So people of different views to yourself are narrowminded, while you are broadminded and correct?

This narrow minded person actually goes to quite a lot of exhibitions, some of which have some excellent art in, some of which have some **** art in. I also went to both the recent Grayson Perry exhibitions that were touring - I like some of his stuff, other bits are not for me. He comes across as a potentially interesting man in the bits and pieces I have encountered about him as a person.

I like to view art works as individual pieces, much as I do novels. Some I like, some I dislike but can see value in, some are a waste of space for me personally. I saw some sketches by Tracy Emin some while back and thought them interesting, but that does not preclude me from thinking her bed is total rubbish. Generally I follow the art piece, not the artist.

On your comments about University courses:

The lack of time is why it's difficult to combine the more academic/theoretical aspects of a degree with the skill/training aspects.

This has nothing to do with 'knowing what they know" but just that the type of "fundamental/theoretical skills/knowledge needed to become a research scientist or the similar, is different to the skills/knowledge needed by the people who will go on to apply the products and findings of that research. Society needs both types of skill/knowledge, generally an individual is more suited to one than the other, and one isn't much use without the other.

Different degrees therefore have a different focus, most, at least in my university employ a good proportion of lecturers from industry and bring in external speakers (and provide work placements) to expand the practical skills part. However, its a regular exercise of going through all the theoretical and practical "essentials" that we "must" teach to try and sort out what little we can actually manage to teach, as we don't have the time to teach everything we believe is essential.

And, in the 15years I was lecturing, (just retired) I was totally unaware of any pressure from anyone to prioritise the welfare of non-eu students.

On your comments on art:

I think you are missing out by following the art piece and not the artist, as the latter is needed to put the former in context, as is some knowledge of art history. Does it not force you to question your views when the same person produces work that you like also produces work you not only don't like, but feel confident enough to proclaim as rubbish. Labelling something as rubbish is a massive jump from personally disliking something. Is it not possible that the artist knows more about art than you do?

Personally, I have found it very easy to appreciate and understand "craft", but much more difficult to understand and appreciate "art", and regularly ask myself the question I just suggested. I simply don't have the confidence in my skills on understanding art (in spite of fairly extensive reading) to personally proclaim anything as rubbish, on the basis of not liking it, or not understanding it.

 

[sirch]

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference. Her bed, or at least parts of that installation are rubbish, literally the detritus of her life at that time. Some of us can empathise with that at two levels, firstly at the level of the art work itself, i.e. how she was feeling at the time when she looked at her bed decided to “elevate” it as an art work. Secondly we can empathise with what she must have known would happen, the tabloid vitriol, how vulnerable exposing her life like that would make her and the bravery it took to put such a thing on public display; and yet she still went ahead, a very brave decision and the repercussions of which she is still living with in threads like this.

Pronouncing something as “rubbish” because you don’t like it says more about you than it does about the work, it is fine to dislike things, no one “likes” all art, just as no one likes all sports. I don’t particularly like football but I don’t feel the need to shout-down anyone who ever has a conversation about it and indeed I can see that going round ranting about a bunch of over-paid prima-donnas is potentially insulting to those who enjoy the game. Empathy.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...my issue is actually with how the art world works.

It works the same way most fields of life do. Make the right contacts, promote yourself, say the right things and you'll get on. It doesn't matter how 'good' you are in your field, if you don't do the other stuff you'll get nowhere and nobody will ever hear of you. This might not be fair, but life isn't fair. get over it.

 

[myotis]

It works the same way most fields of life do. Make the right contacts, promote yourself, say the right things and you'll get on. It doesn't matter how 'good' you are in your field, if you don't do the other stuff you'll get nowhere and nobody will ever hear of you. This might not be fair, but life isn't fair. get over it.

Yes, most careers rely on a variable mix of talent, hard work, knowing the right people, doing the right thing, and luck

 

[StephenM]

I guess I really upset some people here by just disliking what they like. Stick to the 'accepted', tow the line, no thinking, no views of ones own allowed here!

Since this snip was preceded by quoting my post, I assume that post caused it? If so, I fail to see what was in my post that made this reply at all relevant.

On the text I just quoted: you're equating things you don't like with rubbish; and claiming that this blinkered view is a sign of your thinking and having views of your own. I accept the latter, but I'm less certain about the former.

You've started from a position that certain things are rubbish, without proving or arguing the case, and seem to regard it as offensive that others disagree with you. Fine, you think it's rubbish. Can you prove that?