There was this little story that a hungarian stand up humorist told that when he once was in a contemporary art exhibition, he really needed to answer the call of nature, but all he found was a public toilet near the entrance.
He put his backpack on a nearby bench, next to one of those sitting statues, and when he came back, he found that people were scratching their head, wondering about- and some of them even taking photos of - 'the piece of art'.
Chess 'fever'.
Sort:
kaynight wrote:
Have been to galleries in my time . I " get " Turner, Constable, Vettriano etc., but not an unmade bed...
All chocolate box artists whose work would not look out of place on a biscuit tin!
Ideas are ten a penny. I'm sure I could think up a dozen arty concepts in hour if I had too. I have more admiration for skill and technique in putting ideas across.
I have a simple criterion for art which works well for me, namely that if I could replicate it, it is almost certainly rubbish. I have no artistic talent whatsoever.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
There was this little story that a hungarian stand up humorist told that when he once was in a contemporary art exhibition, he really needed to answer the call of nature, but all he found was a public toilet near the entrance.
He put his backpack on a nearby bench, next to one of those sitting statues, and when he came back, he found that people were scratching their head, wondering about- and some of them even taking photos of - 'the piece of art'.
Well this is the interesting phenomena. People hang by way of example Monet on their living room walls, French poppy fields with ladies in sun umbrellas painted in pastel shades. Do they really understand what Monet was trying to achieve when he painted those pictures? Do they really need to understand what he was trying to achieve? absolutely not. My brother has one and he understands nothing about art, to him its simply pretty picture. What I am trying to say is that in art there are all kinds of levels of understanding. Your fictitious friends haphazard approach to art may have resulted in art, but who can say, its open to interpretation and levels of understanding. It might be the same a Van Goghs empty chair, its not the chair that is important (or in this instance the bench and the backpack) but what is absent from it. Your fictitious friends backpack on a bench may evoke similar expressions.
kaynight wrote:
That is a typical snobbish remark from someone who claims to be an artist.
Its true, what intellectual content does Constable have? or Turner for that matter? Lets not talk of that charlatan Vettriano
cabbagecrates wrote:
Ideas are ten a penny. I'm sure I could think up a dozen arty concepts in hour if I had too. I have more admiration for skill and technique in putting ideas across.
I have a simple criterion for art which works well for me, namely that if I could replicate it, it is almost certainly rubbish. I have no artistic talent whatsoever.
Yes but there is a difference between skill and art, is there not? Baking cakes is a skill, but is it an art form?
robbie_1969 írta:
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
There was this little story that a hungarian stand up humorist told that when he once was in a contemporary art exhibition, he really needed to answer the call of nature, but all he found was a public toilet near the entrance.
He put his backpack on a nearby bench, next to one of those sitting statues, and when he came back, he found that people were scratching their head, wondering about- and some of them even taking photos of - 'the piece of art'.
Well this is the interesting phenomena. People hang by way of example Monet on their living room walls, French poppy fields with ladies in sun umbrellas painted in pastel shades. Do they really understand what Monet was trying to achieve when he painted those pictures? Do they really need to understand what he was trying to achieve? absolutely not. My brother has one and he understands nothing about art, to him its simply pretty picture. What I am trying to say is that in art there are all kinds of levels of understanding. Your fictitious friends haphazard approach to art may have resulted in art, but who can say, its open to interpretation and levels of understanding. It might be the same a Van Goghs empty chair, its not the chair that is important (or in this instance the bench and the backpack) but what is absent from it. Your fictitious friends backpack on a bench may evoke similar expressions.
His name is Kőhalmi Zoltán, famous comedian and humorist here, but I doubt you'll understand a thing of it, assuming you don't speak or at least read hungarian.
And thank you yet again for acting like a condescending pickle.
I hope at least you get a kick out of it.
Art that doesn't require any technical skill or practice? How convenient.
My favourite is the guy that sold a canvas painted only in one shade of blue for millions.
Another gem, for robbie:
https://bellamozzarella.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-blank-canvas/
I would like to hear your thoughts about it. Just make sure to use at least two fancy words in each sentence.
robbie_1969 wrote:
Anyone hazard a guess as to why chess is addictive?
The search for truth always is.
I was talking with a friend from Canada and we agreed that chess is highly addictive. The great American Morphy himself referred to as a kind of fever, 'chess fever'. Who of us has not spent a considerable time contemplating some position possibly for hours even days in the case of correspondence chess or engaged in a blitz marathon (I once had my wife bring me breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper to a blitz marathon and man it was awesome) and yet despite beating after beating after beating we come back for more!
As an artist I can appreciate the aesthetics of chess, it is the beautiful game. Even as a modest chess player one can appreciate beauty of an imaginative combination by way of example. But I also like Titian and Carravagio and yet I am not addicted to looking at their paintings, well not much.
I thought it might be the confrontation that people enjoy, but even the World champion stated that he likes to avoid confrontation by nature, so I dunno.
Anyone hazard a guess as to why chess is addictive?
robbie_1969 wrote:
cabbagecrates wrote:
Ideas are ten a penny. I'm sure I could think up a dozen arty concepts in hour if I had too. I have more admiration for skill and technique in putting ideas across.
I have a simple criterion for art which works well for me, namely that if I could replicate it, it is almost certainly rubbish. I have no artistic talent whatsoever.
Yes but there is a difference between skill and art, is there not? Baking cakes is a skill, but is it an art form?
Yes, you are right. I was referring to skill and technique in art. In the end I suppose, if you find something to be art, that is your choice, so it's a hard word to define. I saw the three bags of sand and the bricks at the Liverpool Tate. Although I wouldn't call them art, I could see that there was a beauty of sorts to them, as in many inanimate objects.
robbie_1969 wrote:
kaynight wrote:
That is a typical snobbish remark from someone who claims to be an artist.
Its true, what intellectual content does Constable have? or Turner for that matter? Lets not talk of that charlatan Vettriano
I quite like art that looks nice. Is Vettriano claiming more than to produce pictures that are nice to look at? I think he conveys certain ideas (glamour, nostalgia, melancholy) rather well, so for me that makes him a good artist, but we all have our own ideas.
kaynight wrote:
Emperor's new clothes spring to mind. I think robbie is jealous about successful artists.
Your retort does nothing to address the issue that the work of the artists that you mention has no intellectual content and also bears NO relevance to whether I may be considered successful or otherwise. Its a rather insipid and somewhat transparent logical fallacy and ad hominem. Try to divorce your arguments from the personality behind them in the same way you manage to divorce your opinions from reality. Who knows you may do better.
robbie_1969 írta:
kaynight wrote:
Emperor's new clothes spring to mind. I think robbie is jealous about successful artists.
Your retort does nothing to address the issue that the work of the artists that you mention has no intellectual content and also bears NO relevance to whether I may be considered successful or otherwise. Its a rather insipid and somewhat transparent logical fallacy and ad hominem. Try to divorce your arguments from the personality behind them in the same way you manage to divorce your opinions from reality. Who knows you may do better.
Do you also believe that your 'art' holds any real value and intellectual content?
And thank you yet again for acting like a condescending pickle.
I hope at least you get a kick out of it.
On the contrary i have not been condescending to you and in fact I have respected you enough to attempt to engage you in what so far has been an interesting discussion. May I suggest that this unwarranted attack and affront to my personal dignity is not a reflection of me but of your perceptions fomented by a limited grasp of the subject?
I do not think any less of you or anyone else for that matter because no one can know everything and if you have never studied art then its entirely unreasonable to expect anything else. Then again civility costs nothing either.
kaynight wrote:
Try and quit yo' jibber jabber.
Try an education.
Do you also believe that your 'art' holds any real value and intellectual content?
No my art is empty and deviod, it has no meaning to anyone except me and even then thats pushing it. Its a gimmik! that is all, nothing more.
Is Vettriano claiming more than to produce pictures that are nice to look at? I think he conveys certain ideas (glamour, nostalgia, melancholy) rather well, so for me that makes him a good artist, but we all have our own ideas.
I have watched some interviews of Vettriano, hes entirely honest about his work. Its generally autobiographical and is mostly like you say about things like nostalgia and sex. As I have stated many people find it appealing and they do not care if it has intellectual content or not, they simply want something to hang on their walls. There is nothing wrong with this, people have been hanging decorative pieces on their walls for ages, first tapestries and latterly wallpaper. But art has gone beyond the merely decorative. We now demand meaning. Does Vittrianos work have any meaning beyond the merely decorative? This is the question.
robbie: As "art" goes, it is state of the art s***.
How would you know K unless you visit places where art is exhibited?