the Purpose of Art...

Doubtful - ive seen lots of similar examples so i'd say derivative piece of craftmanship it has the skill , but not the vision
 
big soft moose said:
name one well known piece of art not created by an artist ? (even emins bed which i don't accept as art was still created, it just wasnt done with much skill imo)

End of the day art is created by definition, thats what artists do .
Click to expand...
Make your bloody mind up!
 
I listened to the Axis vid and have said my bit in the debate

I think I'm moving a little

Then I look at the Axis site on the internet and the first one that comes up is

http://www.axisweb.org/p/swilliams/

and I take two steps (well) back
 
The23rdman said:
Make your bloody mind up!
Click to expand...

in what way ? my mind is made up

As I said to be an artist requires both the creative vision to come up with an original concept , and the skill to create that vision in your chosen medium

Emin's bed could just about be decribed as an original concept (in that all sculpture is inspired by and modelled on something) but its not skillfully created - any of us could easily replicate it , and therefore its not art, because it required no artistry to produce. Unlike say Rodin's thinker which most of us couldnt begin to replicate and even those with considerable carving skill would struggle to deliver to the same sandard as the original

however Emins bed isn't a found work - you don't honestly believe she lives in a student like tip with used sanitary towels thrown on the bedding do you ? - she created it , its just that creating it didnt really create any skill. - the four teabags installation is the same - he didnt just find four teabags and go "OMG Art" he piled them up thus creating the 'installation' - its jus that there was no artistry required by the creation
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Ed Sutton said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull's_Head
Click to expand...

fair enough - i assumed it was modern art - I would guess that all the similars ive seen were derived from piccaso rather than the other way arround (although that said even picasso's work was fairly derrivative as people have been crafting metal bulls heads for hundreds of years, so i'm not sure it passes the 'creative vision' test - even if it was created by a famous artist)
 
big soft moose said:
in what way ? my mind is made up

As I said to be an artist requires both the creative vision to come up with an original concept , and the skill to create that vision in your chosen medium

Emin's bed could just about be decribed as an original concept (in that all sculpture is inspired by and modelled on something) but its not skillfully created - any of us could easily replicate it , and therefore its not art, because it required no artistry to produce. Unlike say Rodin's thinker which most of us couldnt begin to replicate and even those with considerable carving skill would struggle to deliver to the same sandard as the original

however Emins bed isn't a found work - you don't honestly believe she lives in a student like tip with used sanitary towels thrown on the bedding do you ? - she created it , its just that creating it didnt really create any skill. - the four teabags installation is the same - he didnt just find four teabags and go "OMG Art" he piled them up thus creating the 'installation' - its jus that there was no artistry required by the creation
Click to expand...

This is now going pointlessly in circles. You are talking about SKILL, not art. Artistry is not art. As you seem unwilling to understand this concept I'll bow out again.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Now, being controversial here, technical brains are technical for a reason. It is the mindset that attracted individuals to photography in the first place. The technical bit. Then someone like David (Pookeyhead) comes along and says that artistic photography requires more. Takes more thought and depth and planning and creativity. And this is where the conflict arises. Most photographers took up photography exactly and precisely because they arent that creative (if they were they'd be a painter/musician/author/sculptor etc etc) and this kind of debate then is seen as a 'threat' to their hobby. It touches on areas that they know aren't within their reach and mindset. They therefore react with aggression to the subject because it is seen to undermine the hobby itself. Obviously I'm generalising here but hopefully you get my drift.

I recently gave a presentation to a camera club in the midlands and I spoke about trying to be creative. Like David, I totally understand that we aren't all blessed with creativity. However, it is quite simple to build this into your image making. Inspiration is all around us and ultimately it doesn't matter whether its classed as 'good' art or not, its personal, its yours, its your creation. I have a hard drive full of images I enjoyed producing, some are rubbish, some I think are quite good. The fact is, I don't care what others think as I don't really show them off generally. If I did, I would want a reaction. Love or hate. "It's nice or it's good" wouldn't be a pleasing response. Interestingly, "I don't get it" also works for me.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're being controversial, but trying to rationalise an irrational problem.

You mention other areas of creativity. I've been a musician since I was 11, starting on brass & playing in military bands, playing guitar from 16 and regularly playing out - it's been more than 35 years now, and I usually like to improvise.

I've been involved in music forums since around 2000, and one of the things that makes this thread - even this forum - seem so odd to me is that we would pretty much never have this debate among guitar players. If you play then you're interpreting and creating as you go along, whether you play orginals or are in a cover band. There is occasionally a little bit of argy-bargy between those who prefer to play by instinct/feel and those who prefer a technical approach or those who are self-taught and those with formal training, but it's usually good natured. The point is that everyone who can play a piece is a musician, and even if they aren't the most techically accomplished (and no one individual is ever going to be able to match the best of every genre) their music is all still valid as an expression of creativity.
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
This is now going pointlessly in circles. You are talking about SKILL, not art. Artistry is not art. As you seem unwilling to understand this concept I'll bow out again.
Click to expand...

My point is that art requires skill - if theres no artistry in the creation then theres no art, just a random pile of crap that a half trained chimp could have created.

Its not that I am unwilling to understand the concept that you espouse , its that I don't agree with it.

If we were to accept that art does not require artistic skill (aka artistry) to create , then the logical conclusion would be that anything at all could be art, the bird on the stick that David bangs on about, the half arsed wedding picture taken by uncle bob, the heap of washing up in my sink, the lump of green putty i found in my armpit one morning.

Personally I reject that conclusion , and the premise that leads to it as it devalues true Art (ie that created with great skill and creatve vision , buy the masters of their various feilds)
 
big soft moose said:
My point is that art requires skill - if theres no artistry in the creation then theres no art, just a random pile of crap that a half trained chimp could have created.

Its not that I am unwilling to understand the concept that you espouse , its that I don't agree with it.

If we were to accept that art does not require artistic skill (aka artistry) to create , then the logical conclusion would be that anything at all could be art, the bird on the stick that David bangs on about, the half arsed wedding picture taken by uncle bob, the heap of washing up in my sink, the lump of green putty i found in my armpit one morning.

Personally I reject that conclusion , and the premise that leads to it as it devalues true Art (ie that created with great skill and creatve vision , buy the masters of their various feilds)
Click to expand...
But art does not require skill, it requires vision, intent and execution. Artistry requires skill and sometimes that is also art.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The point is that everyone who can play a piece is a musician, and even if they aren't the most techically accomplished (and no one individual is ever going to be able to match the best of every genre) their music is all still valid as an expression of creativity.
Click to expand...

which is fair enough as even being able to play a recognisable tune onthe guitar takes some skill ... but its not a valid comparison as what some are saying here is that anyone who takes a guitar and twangs it a few times is a musician if they say they are , even if they don't have the skill to play a tune
 
big soft moose said:
fair enough - i assumed it was modern art - I would guess that all the similars ive seen were derived from piccaso rather than the other way arround (although that said even picasso's work was fairly derrivative as people have been crafting metal bulls heads for hundreds of years, so i'm not sure it passes the 'creative vision' test - even if it was created by a famous artist)
Click to expand...

All art is derived from what has gone before - and what is being made at the same time. No doubt metal bulls heads have been made for centuries, and anyone could have welded a bike seat handlebars, the thing is that Picasso thought of it AND did it.

Here's a portrait I shot a while back. Anyone could have taken the picture, probably more skilfully than me.

DL2_4735.jpg
 
big soft moose said:
which is fair enough as even being able to play a recognisable tune onthe guitar takes some skill ... but its not a valid comparison as what some are saying here is that anyone who takes a guitar and twangs it a few times is a musician if they say they are , even if they don't have the skill to play a tune
Click to expand...
Which is a nice connection back to Brian Eno. :)
 
The23rdman said:
But art does not require skill in my opinion
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you , and thats the basic issue you feel it doesnt, i feel it does , an no ammount of oh yes it does oh no it doesnt (he's behind you) etc is going to change that ... which is as it should be given that perceptions by definition vary from person to person. So I suggest we agree to disagree on that point
 
big soft moose said:
which is fair enough as even being able to play a recognisable tune onthe guitar takes some skill ... but its not a valid comparison as what some are saying here is that anyone who takes a guitar and twangs it a few times is a musician if they say they are , even if they don't have the skill to play a tune
Click to expand...

At what point does someone become a photographer?

The point I was trying to make is that this kind of angry thread isn't normal among those with a different kind of creative outlet.
 
big soft moose said:
Fixed that for you , and thats the basic issue you feel it doesnt, i feel it does , an no ammount of oh yes it does oh no it doesnt (he's behind you) etc is going to change that ... which is as it should be given that perceptions by definition vary from person to person. So I suggest we agree to disagree on that point
Click to expand...
Agreed. Please don't do the "fixed that for you" thing though.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Here's a portrait I shot a while back. Anyone could have taken the picture, probably more skilfully than me.

DL2_4735.jpg
Click to expand...


No offence intended I wouldnt accept that as art either - as theres no real inherent photographic skill i either seeing the composition or taking the picture, and it could easily be replicated by anyone who owns a camera. (this could also be said about most of my output - which is why ive never claimed to be an artist with my photgraphy)
 
ancient_mariner said:
At what point does someone become a photographer?
Click to expand...

Well ive always said that owning a camera makes you a photographer in the same way that owning a guitar makes you a musician (ie that you have to learn to 'play' it before you can make that claim)

ancient_mariner said:
The point I was trying to make is that this kind of angry thread isn't normal among those with a different kind of creative outlet.
Click to expand...

I dunno ive seen art vs craft hotly contested on wood work and carving websites before , and the art of writing is often contentious on writers forums (the usual rubric there being that fiction and poetry are art, but that non fiction reporting is a craft ... not a view point i entirely concur with , my position being that the art of writing is about how you use the language , and that a rich and evocative piece of non fiction is more creative than a formulaic unimaginative piece of fiction ) - may be musicians are just more laid back than many other artistic types
 
big soft moose said:
No offence intended I wouldnt accept that as art either - as theres no real inherent photographic skill i either seeing the composition or taking the picture, and it could easily be replicated by anyone who owns a camera. (this could also be said about most of my output - which is why ive never claimed to be an artist with my photgraphy)
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming it to be art. I posted it as an example of seeing something that others might not. Saying it could have been replicated by anyone with a camera pretty much dismisses the vast majority of great photographs. That factor is what makes photography such a brilliant medium - it gives anyone without technical skills the ability to make pictures using their personal vision.

It really is pretty obvious that trying to convince you that mastery of technical skill isn't required is a waste of time.

ancient_mariner said:
The point I was trying to make is that this kind of angry thread isn't normal among those with a different kind of creative outlet.
Click to expand...

I think the reason it's happening on a photography forum was alluded to earlier:

Rich_Ellis said:
I have a theory, its that photography draws the technically minded due to its, well, engineery type of logical process. What often happens is that we get used to and good at performing the technical type of image. As has been said before, taking 'pretty' well exposed pictures. The reality is that anyone who has also learned the technical skills could also take the same images quite easily. Often you hear people on this forum start to say "What next?", "Where do I go from here?" "I feel like I'm stuck in a rut", "It's just not holding my interest like it used to" and "I am struggling for inspiration". This is because they have reached a technical ability in their chosen field (wildlife/macro/landscape etc etc) and it no longer holds a challenge to them. It's like hitting a wall. What next, where next.
Click to expand...

The majority of people who take an interest in photography as a hobby/pastime don't come to it via an interest in the arts.
 
ancient_mariner said:
There is occasionally a little bit of argy-bargy between those who prefer to play by instinct/feel and those who prefer a technical approach or those who are self-taught and those with formal training, but it's usually good natured.
Click to expand...

My experience of this (generally) is that musicians who improvise wish they had the ability to play whilst reading and musicians who read wish they could improvise. (I am an improviser - I can read but not fast enough to play at the same time).

So it's usually a mutual respect rather than an argument over which method is better.


Steve.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I'm not claiming it to be art. I posted it as an example of seeing something that others might not. Saying it could have been replicated by anyone with a camera pretty much dismisses the vast majority of great photographs. That factor is what makes photography such a brilliant medium - it gives anyone without technical skills the ability to make pictures using their personal vision.
Click to expand...

nope - most great photos were taken by great photographers who truly understood their equipment and medium and had both the vision to see the photo and the techincal ability to take it ... hardly any great photos were taken by sticking a camera in auto and hoping for the best. (not that i'm saying you did in the photo above - i'm talking in general)


Ed Sutton said:
It really is pretty obvious that trying to convince you that mastery of technical skill isn't required is a waste of time.

.
Click to expand...

yep - and equally that trying to convince you that it is , is likewise - perhaps we should just agree to differ and move on
 
Tintin124 said:
Without an explanation it is just a photo of a coat hanger.
Click to expand...

that was my first thought - ive got a tenant blacksmith who knocks something very similarout for about 50 quid a hit (he doesnt claim its art - he's very much in the craft camp)
 
Steve Smith said:
My experience of this (generally) is that musicians who improvise wish they had the ability to play whilst reading and musicians who read wish they could improvise. (I am an improviser - I can read but not fast enough to play at the same time).

So it's usually a mutual respect rather than an argument over which method is better.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I used to read for brass, play by ear for guitar. :)
 
big soft moose said:
in what way ? my mind is made up

As I said to be an artist requires both the creative vision to come up with an original concept , and the skill to create that vision in your chosen medium

Emin's bed could just about be decribed as an original concept (in that all sculpture is inspired by and modelled on something) but its not skillfully created - any of us could easily replicate it , and therefore its not art, because it required no artistry to produce. Unlike say Rodin's thinker which most of us couldnt begin to replicate and even those with considerable carving skill would struggle to deliver to the same sandard as the original

however Emins bed isn't a found work - you don't honestly believe she lives in a student like tip with used sanitary towels thrown on the bedding do you ? - she created it , its just that creating it didnt really create any skill. - the four teabags installation is the same - he didnt just find four teabags and go "OMG Art" he piled them up thus creating the 'installation' - its jus that there was no artistry required by the creation
Click to expand...

Just that actually if you read what I wrote earlier. She was depressed, living exactly like that, drinking heavily and saw it as a portrait of her life at that moment.
 
BillN_33 said:
I listened to the Axis vid and have said my bit in the debate

I think I'm moving a little

Then I look at the Axis site on the internet and the first one that comes up is

http://www.axisweb.org/p/swilliams/

and I take two steps (well) back
Click to expand...


Ok.. care to elaborate? What do you want to say about it?
 
Byker28i said:
Just that actually if you read what I wrote earlier. She was depressed, living exactly like that, drinking heavily and saw it as a portrait of her life at that moment.
Click to expand...

yeah right , and shortly afterwards a magical flying horse landed next to the unicorn paddock bearing a message for her from Zeus (to be clear i'm not doubting you - just the honesty of that explanation - i'm sure you are repeating it in good faith)

If you're depressed , and living like that you don't wake up one day and say "hey this could be an artistic installation"

I once took a whole 36 roll of shots of my feet and an empty wine bottle while i was p***ed (it seemed like a good idea at the time) I'm sure i could come up with some pretentious waffle about how it was a paradign of my situation.. the lack of footwear being clearly evocative of the change of priorities brought about be alchol or some such... it would be utter b*****ks but in some quarters it would probably fly as art.

I may have mentioned before my freind lee who did a creative arts degree at the same uni i was at (he wanted to go into the army but needed a degree first to qualify for fast track officer training - creative art was the only course that would take him with one E and two Us) he hated everything about his course and as a consequence did jacks*** and spend most of his time drinking and playing rugby. The day before his diserttation piece was due in he reallised that he'd actually done nothing... so he glued four beer bottles together with superglue - one one way up and the other three the other way up , and four of us sat in the pub and had a creative writing session putting together an explanation about how these beer bottles were an essential paradign of the student experience... and basically threw in every pretentious cliche we could think of "the bottles were essentially contained precisely within their own dimensions , in the same way that the student feels contained by the dimensions of the university" that sort of thing.

He expected a fail , or at best to scrape through with a non honours pass. He actaully scored 86% for his dissertation module, which took him to an over all 2nd class honours position (dragging up the woeful exam marks). This told me everything i needed to know about the credibility of a lot of creative arts
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I don't think you're being controversial, but trying to rationalise an irrational problem.

You mention other areas of creativity. I've been a musician since I was 11, starting on brass & playing in military bands, playing guitar from 16 and regularly playing out - it's been more than 35 years now, and I usually like to improvise.

I've been involved in music forums since around 2000, and one of the things that makes this thread - even this forum - seem so odd to me is that we would pretty much never have this debate among guitar players. If you play then you're interpreting and creating as you go along, whether you play orginals or are in a cover band. There is occasionally a little bit of argy-bargy between those who prefer to play by instinct/feel and those who prefer a technical approach or those who are self-taught and those with formal training, but it's usually good natured. The point is that everyone who can play a piece is a musician, and even if they aren't the most techically accomplished (and no one individual is ever going to be able to match the best of every genre) their music is all still valid as an expression of creativity.
Click to expand...

I did say I was generalising so the comparison doesn't hold tight everywhere. However, is playing someone else's composition artistic? Sure it's your interpretation and would rarely sound like the original but.....?

Also I have no idea about your skills as a photographer either and therefore you may well be a true artist anyway thus proving my point. Or you may feel you are still mastering the technicals and would never tire of the possibilities once you have done so.

I also have been in bands for many years but creating an image that means something to me is something I couldn't achieve musically. Of course that's purely my own opinion of myself so it's hard to discuss I guess!
 
big soft moose said:
yeah right , and shortly afterwards a magical flying horse landed next to the unicorn paddock bearing a message for her from Zeus (to be clear i'm not doubting you - just the honesty of that explanation - i'm sure you are repeating it in good faith)

If you're depressed , and living like that you don't wake up one day and say "hey this could be an artistic installation"

I once took a whole 36 roll of shots of my feet and an empty wine bottle while i was p***ed (it seemed like a good idea at the time) I'm sure i could come up with some pretentious waffle about how it was a paradign of my situation.. the lack of footwear being clearly evocative of the change of priorities brought about be alchol or some such... it would be utter b*****ks but in some quarters it would probably fly as art.

I may have mentioned before my freind lee who did a creative arts degree at the same uni i was at (he wanted to go into the army but needed a degree first to qualify for fast track officer training - creative art was the only course that would take him with one E and two Us) he hated everything about his course and as a consequence did jacks*** and spend most of his time drinking and playing rugby. The day before his diserttation piece was due in he reallised that he'd actually done nothing... so he glued four beer bottles together with superglue - one one way up and the other three the other way up , and four of us sat in the pub and had a creative writing session putting together an explanation about how these beer bottles were an essential paradign of the student experience... and basically threw in every pretentious cliche we could think of "the bottles were essentially contained precisely within their own dimensions , in the same way that the student feels contained by the dimensions of the university" that sort of thing.

He expected a fail , or at best to scrape through with a non honours pass. He actaully scored 86% for his dissertation module, which took him to an over all 2nd class honours position (dragging up the woeful exam marks). This told me everything i needed to know about the credibility of a lot of creative arts
Click to expand...

That may well be down to your integrity or otherwise (and how much you can fool yourself). Like someone earlier in the thread took a shot of their grandson and son, but decided it couldn't be art because they hadn't pre-planned the shot, though one might reasonably say they were an experienced photographer and captured what they saw coming, but anyway. I don't know, and probably nor does anyone else except ms Emin.
 
ancient_mariner said:
That may well be down to your integrity or otherwise (and how much you can fool yourself)..
Click to expand...

or how much you can fool other people - in Lee's case he new fine well it wasn't art , he hated his course, thought with some justification that his lecturers were collosal w******s, and wanted nothing to do with art ever again after graduation (he had wanted to do a sports coaching course but didnt have the grades) , so basically by throwing together a diseertation with no real artistic meaning but loaded with cliches he was giving them two fingers and fully expected them to fail him on it.

However their collosal wankiness to the fore they failed to spot the sarcasm and irony in his (our) explanation piece and commended it for its "insightful analysis of the student lifestyle" (along the way mightily p***ing off his fellow students who'd worked much harder on their pieces but hadnt included anything like as much garbage in their explanations because they weren't taking the p***.)

Its interesting to note that lee did ten years in the army , came out with the rank of captain, self funded himself through the sports coaching degree he'd allways wanted to do , and now works with disadvantaged kids through sport ... and graffiti art.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I did say I was generalising so the comparison doesn't hold tight everywhere. However, is playing someone else's composition artistic? Sure it's your interpretation and would rarely sound like the original but.....?

Also I have no idea about your skills as a photographer either and therefore you may well be a true artist anyway thus proving my point. Or you may feel you are still mastering the technicals and would never tire of the possibilities once you have done so.

I also have been in bands for many years but creating an image that means something to me is something I couldn't achieve musically. Of course that's purely my own opinion of myself so it's hard to discuss I guess!
Click to expand...

See that's not a discussion one would normally have at harmony central, or basschat. Nobody doubts that a concert violinist who plays recitals of pieces that have been played for hundreds of years sometimes is an artist. Now if you're knocking out Alright Now for the punters at the Duck and Grouse then you might be a hack, but no-one would think, generally, to call someone that because they're up on stage, in front of the audience doing their best to give them a good time. It's a different world view, generous, encouraging, possibly a little too much so at times, but it tends to build people up instead of tearing them down.

As for my skills as a photographer, I'd prefer not to pretend to artistry because it carries so many negative connotations. And if I can create a picture that makes someone stop and say "wow, that's beautiful" it seems that I may have made someone's life better than I could through something that requres training to interpret and fully benefit from.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'd prefer not to pretend to artistry because it carries so many negative connotations.
Click to expand...

That's the saddest thing I've read in this thread.

My final word would have to be - going back to the thread title - that the purpose of art is to enable photographers to feel superior to artists.
 
big soft moose said:
I once took a whole 36 roll of shots of my feet and an empty wine bottle while i was p***ed (it seemed like a good idea at the time) I'm sure i could come up with some pretentious waffle about how it was a paradign of my situation.. the lack of footwear being clearly evocative of the change of priorities brought about be alchol or some such... it would be utter b*****ks but in some quarters it would probably fly as art.
Click to expand...
:LOL::LOL::LOL:

Please put them up for an artistic critique contest Pete, :LOL:

made me chuckle that did:)
 
BillN_33 said:
i cannot David i'm in overload, be content with what you have
Click to expand...


?

If you're in overload, stop trying with the cheap shots. Just go for a lie down.

Just curious if it was the skill thing again. While it may have been pieces of string and bits of wood... I reckon that would be interesting to see, as you'd see the movement of the air and water as people and things interact with it. I think that's what she was on about with appreciation of space and all that.

big soft moose said:
I may have mentioned before my freind lee who did a creative arts degree at the same uni i was at (he wanted to go into the army but needed a degree first to qualify for fast track officer training - creative art was the only course that would take him with one E and two Us) he hated everything about his course and as a consequence did jacks*** and spend most of his time drinking and playing rugby. The day before his diserttation piece was due in he reallised that he'd actually done nothing... so he glued four beer bottles together with superglue - one one way up and the other three the other way up , and four of us sat in the pub and had a creative writing session putting together an explanation about how these beer bottles were an essential paradign of the student experience... and basically threw in every pretentious cliche we could think of "the bottles were essentially contained precisely within their own dimensions , in the same way that the student feels contained by the dimensions of the university" that sort of thing.

He expected a fail , or at best to scrape through with a non honours pass. He actaully scored 86% for his dissertation module, which took him to an over all 2nd class honours position (dragging up the woeful exam marks). This told me everything i needed to know about the credibility of a lot of creative arts
Click to expand...

You can't pass a degree with just a dissertation. A degree is the aggregate of all your level 5 and level 6 grades, and there are no "exams" on a creative arts degree, and it's all coursework. There will be essays and critical presentations, hosting seminars and exhibitions throughout as well as your studio projects. He'd have to be consistently producing work for the last 2 years to pass. Also, even though level 4 grades don't count towards your degree classification, you have to pass ALL your first year projects as well to be able to progress to the second year. If you failed everything else, and wrote the best dissertation in the world, you'd fail badly.. in fact, you'd never have even made it to year 2. Also... to get 86% (B+) in his dissertation, it must have been very well researched, referenced and written. You can't just write any old crap. A dissertation is not your opinion, it has to be backed up with research and citation. To get a 2:1 or a 2:2 you'd need to average C- (for a 2:2) to B+ (for a 2:1) for the entire last 2 years. I suspect he's pulling your leg. You have to work for the full 3 years to get a degree Pete.

Cool story.... but sadly not true... as he told it.

"the bottles were essentially contained precisely within their own dimensions , in the same way that the student feels contained by the dimensions of the university".

I'm sorry, but that would not fool anyone either.

Then there's the question of how he got ON a creative arts degree with no talent, interest in, or involvement with art in any way, shape or form, especially with no academic qualifications. Not a chance. He'd stand as much chance as I would trying to get onto an economics degree. Nil.

Either this is a greatly embellished story, or it was the worst university in the history of history. I suspect the former. If the latter.... we can assume this wasn't Goldsmith's then huh? :)
 
Last edited:
I'm currently studying for a Ba (hons) in photography through distance learning. If only it was as simple as Moose claimed I could have not bothered working hard at level 4 for the last 4 years and skipped straight to my dissertation. Unfortunately in the real world I study in, I've had to produce quality work through assignments and submit each module for formal assessment with gradings before being allowed to progress.

Which Uni was this Moose?

I'm currently working on a project which is a personal portrait based on feelings. Perhaps I should just call it collosal wankiness
 
The entire discussion in this thread is why I think I'm really going to struggle with the same course as Byker long term. My mind is going to have to open up in way I never thought would happen, and I read a bunch of peoples thoughts on some of the work discussed in here and actually feel like I'm some uneducated oaf because I just don't get it. Woe is me, let me get my miniature violin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top