A Rant

In what context do you mean? In terms of Art, I couldn't agree more. There are parts of the Tate Modern that are absolutely fantastic and you would never tire of wandering around in. Then there are parts which have to be seen to be believed.

However, some of what these pampered students who are clearly off their head deem art is beyond belief. I went to the Venice Biennale two years ago .. French Pavillion was very good in terms of both content and presentation, the English one was embarassing but after all it was Tracy Emin. Then onto the US pavillion ... two rooms, with a pile of posters in one room, and a pile of sweets in another. The idea was the 'Art' disappears due to human interaction in taking a poster or a sweet. There is on the most part generous funding behind the Biennale. The US 'Artists' were no doubt out of their minds from one thing or another for months on end and came up with a concept in the week before the exhibition began.
 
Bit of a heathen myself, I do like art but when I went to see the Mona Lisa I thought it was shite. There was however a great big painting of a battle scene in the same room, marvellous, name that piece !? I have no idea what it was.
 
You´d have loved the topic of one of my assignments at Uni Simmo.

Along the lines of "Post Modernity As A Lifestyle Choice, Discuss"
 
The Battle of Anghiari has been missing for some time (centuries) there are accounts that it was painted as a fresco and supposed to be a defining piece but no one knows where it is (how the hell you lose a fresco I don't know?) The painting in the louvre i believe is a Reubens copy or version of the disputed piece
 
Last edited:
There is often too much of an obsession with labeling art. All art is about is whether you do or dont connect with it and how much

Sometimes your mood and views change...or perhaps develop is a better word. Cy twombly at the tate completely changed my feelings about his work. It was stunning seen incontext. And you also leave other stuff behind...(wondering why the hell i liked Giaicometti)
 
The Mona Lisa was a waste of an hour queuing.

Did anybody ever see the Manneken Pis? Its about three inches tall. Another waste.
 
Warbler said:
The Battle of Anghiari has been missing for some time (centuries) there are accounts that it was painted as a fresco and supposed to be a defining piece but no one knows where it is (how the hell you lose a fresco I don't know?) The painting in the louvre i believe is a Reubens copy or version of the disputed piece
Click to expand...

Thanks Warbs, do you think Reubens could do me a copy :) The other treasuress in the Louvre that the French plundered from around the World where well worth seeing.
 
Well, there are actually two separate rants here (should have made that a bit clearer).

First, and very definitely foremost in my mind, is the illogicality of the phrase "post-modernism". Something which is modern is new, or current. Something which has occurred, when placed in a timescale, must be, at the very furthest along the time chain, modern. Something which is "post" modern cannot be anything except a reference to a future event - and cannot therefore have occurred. Thus to describe a piece of art (or anything else for that matter) which already exists as post modern is illogical. The reasons for it's use probably lie more in the second rant.

Secondly, modern art, or should I say, post modern art, does little for me in terms of emotional attachment or involvement in the piece. There is an alarming amount of "art" these days which looks like it has been made by a particularly untalented 2 year old. When pointing this out to the modern art lover, one is met with the perennial classic, "you don't understand it". Yip, you're quite right, I don't. I don't understand why anyone would attempt to pass off some senseless twaddle as art with a wankspiel about how it defines some aspect of humanity blah blah blah, when in actual fact, it is simply poor in quality and thought.

Come to think of it, perhaps it is a reflection of humanity's generally increasing movement towards acceptance of second class work as a "target"

Postmodernism is defined (in the dictionary I looked at), as "a mix of different styles". Well art-twats, I think you'll find we already have a word to describe such a "movement". Dare you to find it and use it.
 
Speaking of dictionaries, I looked up wankspiel in mine and I couldn't find it, is it a German word :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Sheikh said:
Speaking of dictionaries, I looked up wankspiel in mine and I couldn't finsd it, is it a German word :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In the spirit of inventing words, I made it up last week, along with uningrained. It's roots would be an eclectic mix of modern English and German.

I think it is a beautifully descriptive word and would encourage it's further use by all. I look forward to seeing it in next year's edition of the Oxford English. :D
 
Simmo,

Contemporary art is the art of current times, and refers to art from the past 30 years or so to now. Modern art preceeded that, and can be applied to any genre of Art of over the past 120 years to 30 years ago (beginning of Contemporary period), and is by some, but I would more consider modern art to encompass the period from post impressionism to the beginning of Contemporary Art. Postmodern art is therefore considered to fall under the 'Contemporary' banner.

It's quite blurred and maybe should be, as Art isn't for categorisation.

Modern art can include movements such as (in no particular order) post impressionism, cubism, abstract impressionism, futurism, surealism, pointilism and so on.

I agree in a general sense with your point about what constitutes art today. I don't accept this condescending rubbish of 'you don't understand it' in the same way as you don't, and am frustrated and angry when the likes of Tracey Emin is admitted to the RA; it's a disgrace, and she has no discernible talent to my eye. The likes of Damien Hirst and Banksy are not much better and exist as they do, purely because art is more a commodity for Russian Billionaires/celebrities/investment bankers (delete as appropriate) than anything resembling artistic merit.
 
Hamm said:
Contemporary art is the art of current times, and refers to art from the past 30 years or so to now. Modern art preceeded that, and can be applied to any genre of Art of over the past 120 years to 30 years ago (beginning of Contemporary period), and is by some, but I would more consider modern art to encompass the period from post impressionism to the beginning of Contemporary Art. Postmodern art is therefore considered to fall under the 'Contemporary' banner.
Click to expand...

Whilst I understand the general concepts of the categorisation of art as you describe, that doesn't mean that I agree with it.

Contemporary is a synonym of modern, therefore the two are the same thing.
120 years ago is hardly modern, except on a scale of millenia.

Therefore the moniker "modern art" and that of the subsequent classification "contemporary art" are incorrect and shouldn't be encouraged, except in the context that "contemporary art" is modern. We should not, however, find ourselves in a situation whereby in the year 2109, we are referring to the period 1890-1980 as "modern" and 1980-2040 as "contemporary" (because they are not).

I would therefore propose that art arschnoddle re-classify "modern" art using a word which encompasses the styles presented therein, but which is not time specific. Perhaps the catchy yet accurate "Used to be modern but now it's not art" would suffice?

Once said art arschnoddle have decided that there is sufficient evidence to classify what we currently describe as "contemporary" (preferably at a point where it can no longer be described as contemporary), then a suitable classification should be devised and "contemporary" art can remain what it is.

"Post-modern" art will never feature in said nomenclature until man finds a means of travelling forward in time and bringing back art which has not actually been made yet, although I would suggest that "paradoxical art" would be a better handle.

Wankspiel. :cool:
 
Simmo,

Modern art, and the period it refers to, cannot change depending on what year the beholder lives in. It doesn't refer to art of the current time, such as how the word modern could be construed in a different context.
 
angry when the likes of Tracey Emin is admitted to the RA; it's a disgrace, and she has no discernible talent to my eye. The likes of Damien Hirst and Banksy are not much better and exist as they do,
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree. Damien Hirsts stuff can be very arresting although i cannot necessarily warm to it. Banksy is a catoonist really and thats meant in a decent way. But im a quite a fan of Tracey Emin. She can hit a nerve and has much originality

The other side of the coin to this knocking of contempary artists is that artists from past ages are overly venerated. Boring cold Kadinsky, flat Gaugain and god only knows what anyone sees in Mogliadani.

As for the labelling....bit of a pointless argument isnt it? I mean, where would u position the great lucian Freud? Still practising... Does it matter?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top