Art? You decide.
May 22nd 2008
Karen HawkinsOn Writing!
Before I begin, let me state that I love art. I’ve been to most of the bigger museum — Tate, MOMA, Smithsonian, Louvre, British Museum, and a gazillion more. I love museums because I love art.
Well . . . MOST art.
Last week, I read an article in The Mirror about the Turner Prize for Modern Art. The headline really grabbed me. Let’s see what you think . . .
*****
Mannequin on toilet bids for top art prize
By Paul Majendie, LONDON (Reuters) 13/05/2008
*****
Yeah, that’s right. A MANNEQUIN on a TOILET is bidding for the top prize. Better yet, this mannequin is ’squatting on a toilet with bits of dried porridge at her feet.’ At which time my “Huh?” turned into a “HUH?”
The article goes on to state that one year, the winner of this ‘prestigious art award’ was Martin Creed, whose exhibit consisted of an empty room containing a light that switched on and off. Madonna was the show’s MC, which was broadcast live. She was so shocked this guy won that she swore.
I think it’d take a lot to shock Madonna.
The article then asks the real question – how do we know that this award is actually going to art that is QUALITY art, as opposed to — shall we say ‘SUCKY’ art?
“This is art made by people for people,” the event organizer responds. “What is vital about the Turner prize is that it creates informed debate about art. People are not frightened to argue about its merits and de-merits.”
A friend of mine is an artist and I explained to him that, to me, art is about beauty. Not always traditional beauty, but beauty of some sort. He seemed surprised I had such a limited view. For him, art is about emotion, and the more emotion — good or bad — the stronger the piece.
I’ve been grappling with that. Sometimes I think I can almost see what he means. Then I read about a mannequin on a toilet winning a $50,000 prize and my inner artistic eye clenches closed and refuses to open.
So tell me . . . what sort of art do you like? How do you define what’s art and what’s just . . . crap? Have you ever viewed a work of art that you simply did not like, or questioned how it deserved the title of ‘art’? And do you think I’m going to Cultural Hell for even asking?
72 Comments »
72 Responses to “Art? You decide.”
HelenK on 22 May 2008 at 1:36 am #
Well, if you’re going to Cultural Hell so am I.
Honestly? I define art simply: If it looks like something I (or my 5 year old) could have done, it’s not art.
I remember walking through the Tate and seeing red Squares on a black background and being stunned that could hang in a gallery. I could totally do that. No problem. Not Art.
However, I couldn’t do most of the art that hangs in the Musee D’Orsay. That’s art.
LisaK on 22 May 2008 at 4:34 am #
Oh yeah, Karen, that’s my topic! Thank you!
When I was to a museum around here the last time I saw things like nails hammered at a wooden plate – I walked away and did not deign to further look at it.
I’m an artist myself and it really makes me angry when I see things exhibitioned that everyone could have made – angry and also sad, because that makes it (art) less special. I do oil paintings and pencil drawings and etchings like my beloved art teacher taught me and for me, that’s real art – when my classmates come to me and say “Wow, I never could have done that!” or “Now THAT’S beautiful!”.
For me, even expressionism (e.g. “The Scream” by Edvard Munch) hasn’t much to do with art, so how am I supposed to like this neo-modern-however-it-is-called-crap? Such like rubbish in a bathtup?
Oh my god, I have to stop now or I can’t contain myself anymore. I could discuss that topic for hours!
I like the Cultural Hell thing. Maybe we’re all condemned.
Karen Rose on 22 May 2008 at 5:32 am #
Karen, my view of art changes as I get older. I used to discount some pieces of “art” that today I look at and say “Hmmm.” Some things still make me say, “HUH?”
Back in college, I only liked “real” pieces – where I could actually tell what the piece was, be it scupture or painting. Then I developed an appreciation for impressionists – altho’ I think they all just needed corrective lenses. That’s how I see the world when I’m not wearing my glasses or contacts, all blurrified.
Now, I’m more, well if somebody likes it, then it’s art. I don’t have to like it. But a mannequin on a toilet – that still ain’t art to me. Somebody went dumpster diving and threw (ahem) STUFF together. And what’s with the porridge?
Marie on 22 May 2008 at 5:59 am #
Okay, this is my take on this individual piece. I don’t have definition of art, but I can tell you what the mannequin is saying, to me at least.
Mannequin’s are to be the perfect form of the human body. Agreed? That is how manufacturers sell their clothes, by making us want the body that lies underneath the clothing. The reason for super skinny models.
She is sitting on the pot because she is bulimic. She is trying to maintain her perfect body or make it even more perfect.
The porridge represents puke. She is ridding her body on both ends to maintain her figure.
Yes, this piece is art. Good art.
The lights flickering is not art. It has absolutely no meaning.
Kathy/Cookiedough on 22 May 2008 at 6:03 am #
I really have some thigns to say about art and the odd people who think a blue dot in the middle of a huge white canvas is art-cough- not!!!
I have to go check out my school- it’s orientation day! I’m going to be a total geek and take my camera!
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 6:21 am #
Helenk, the D’Orsay is one of my favorites! I like you definition, too. Did you see where someone entered their young child’s art into a modern art competition at the Smithsonian and won? They said they did it to show that modern art was so open to interpretation that it had ‘lost its meaning.’ The Smithsonian, meanwhile, said it merely proved that genius could happen at all ages.
I call that denial!
Lisak, YEAH! Words from the mouth of an artist! I feel vindicated! It’s not that I don’t appreciate some of the modern art — I ‘get’ Picasso and some of the others. Not every one of their works, but some of them are very complex and took a lot of thought, effort, and have their own strange beauty. But the nail in the wooden plate? It’s like someone cheated on their homework and hopes no one notices.
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 6:30 am #
Karen Rose, I have NO idea what’s with the porridge. I was already shocked at the toilet part and when I got there, i was just more shocked, only since I was already at the high shocked level, it didn’t really resonate. I only have so much shocked to go around, ya know.
I love impressionists! I even bought one from an old college friend who is now trying to make it as an artist — he’s darn good, too. But I have to admit, I like his more conservative works a bit more.
Wow Marie! So this grouping of objects has a meaning. But I still can’t find the ‘art.’ If something just has to have a message, then a stop sign is a masterpiece. Now that I say that, I wonder if one wasn’t hanging beside Lisa K’s wooden plate. Also, somewhere someone found a reason for the flickering light and gave it the big prize, too, so . . . I’m not sure I can accept that ‘meaning’ = ‘art.’ There has to be something else. Which brings me back to a form of beauty, or perhaps something else. Does that make sense?
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 6:33 am #
Kathy, enjoy your geekdom/picture day! And I forgot about the blue dot on the white canvas. I saw that in the MoMA and I was perplexed. I wanted MY blue dot on white paper to be in there, too!
Beth C. on 22 May 2008 at 7:44 am #
Ok, I am art-deficient. I like things I can understand. Like Landscapes and pictures of fruit. I have several pieces of Space and Fantasy art.
About the closest I get to ‘real art’ is this artist my husband and I saw on our honeymoon in San Francisco ten years ago:
Andreas Nottebohm http://www.mesart.com/users/andreas/index.html
These are large pieces done in different metals. In person, these reflect the light and seem like liquid lightening or space scenes. At the time they were going for $10,000 to $20,000 dollars. Way out of our price ranges but we really considered trying to buy one.
That’s about the extent of my ‘art’ knowledge. I much prefer music to art. If it’s not a pretty picture I can look at, why bother?
Beth
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 7:50 am #
My late DH was an artist. I have paintings all over the hillside. His kids have bunches also. When we first married, we went down to Philadelphia for a day of sightseeing. Naturally, the Philadelphia Art Musuem of “Rocky” fame was first on my list. I loved it and have never seen all of it. I adored the smaller, more intimate nearby Rodin museum. But I tend to like sculpture a lot.
He took me to a a small museum/gallery/? off Rittenhouse Square. As I recall, it was in an old house. We walked into one room that had a metal trash can lying on it’s side with it’s contents strewn out. Looked sort of like my kitchen when the dog gets into the garbage. I was stunned that this was considered “art” and was being viewed with reverence by everybody but me.
We had one of our first marital arguments over this piece of crap. Not over the piece, but the fact that I stood there and LOL. Oh the shame! I’m still laughing.
Some people think the poker playing dogs are high art. *G*
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 7:51 am #
Oh yeah. It wasn’t even a shiny, new trash can either.
Karen Rose on 22 May 2008 at 8:07 am #
Margaret – you made me laugh out loud, too, literally. Not a shiny can. I would have laughed, too.
Marie on 22 May 2008 at 8:09 am #
LOL, a trash can? I’d be laughing too.
See I think art simply has to resonate with the person.
I don’t get Picasso, I don’t get most of the people that combine colors and call it art.
I’m a realist. The art I have hanging on my walls all represent one thing innocence.
A girl sitting by a creek with her spaniel, 2 girls playing on a hillside by a church, a woman in her wedding dress, a kid with her doll. Innocence resonates with me.
It’s like everything. A quote that means the world to one person may have no meaning to another, a song that brings a tear to one’s eye may not have any influence over the other.
doglady on 22 May 2008 at 8:09 am #
All aboard for the bus to Cultural Hell! Beer, cokes and margaritas are in the washtub full of ice at the back!
Give me a break! I spent and entire day in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam! THAT is art! A Turner landscape. That is art! DaVinci’s David, now that is definitely ART! Picasso, Warhohl even Jackson Pollack.
A mannequin on a toilet is NOT art! Nor is a starving dog chained up in a museum and allowed to die while on exhibit while people file by. The “artist” should be chained up and allowed to die, preferable with electrical wires attached to portions of his anatomy. But the people who allowed the exhibit and those who viewed it should be subjected to public humiliation.
Art should be a representation of what is best of us, of victory over the horrors man can create. It should uplift, inform or provoke thought. It should not be done to shock or depress. Life does enough of that as it is.
Lisa H on 22 May 2008 at 8:11 am #
I don’t know anything about art, only what I like and don’t like. I love the sculptures at the Louvre. They are masterpieces as are the paintings that are bigger than my house…but a mannquin on a toilet would not inspire me. I don’t see how it could compete with the talent and ability of a piece of work like Michaelangelo’s David.
I don’t care for “modern art” but I have never studied its background or meaning or creators to understand the emotion behind it. I don’t care if I end up in Cultural Hell, I believe I’d have good company.
Kay on 22 May 2008 at 8:32 am #
I see a theme here, ladies. I’ll agree with you all.
HelenK, My oldest child, DH & I can’t draw a line, but our youngest child likes to draw and is pretty good–much better than the so called “important new art” I have seen at some “modern” art museums.
Did anyone see the SITC episode with the “performance art?” LMAO at Carrie’s response.
Marie on 22 May 2008 at 8:37 am #
The woman sitting on a chair!
ROFL! Yes. I agree that is not art.
Kari on 22 May 2008 at 8:38 am #
Lisa H, you’ld have great company!
I don’t “get” any type of art. Scratch that. I get God’s art. The color of the clouds in the morning as the sun is rising. The way the last bit of sunlight dances over the gulf as it sets for another night. THAT is art to me. You could never capture that on canvas, IMO. Sure you can get the colors and such but you can’t recreate the feelings you get while being there and experiencing it.
To me, it’s like someone taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower and execting you to feel the magic they felt when they were there. They know the smell, the sounds, the tastes of being there. You have a 4×6 piece of paper with an image on it. I think I am getting off track.
I think that paiting and sculptures are pretty in all but I don’t think I could ever “get” them. It’s just eye candy to me. Something to look at and that’s about it, for me.
My point is, just like beauty, art will always be in the eye of the beholder.
Claudia Dain on 22 May 2008 at 8:51 am #
I can almost get on board with the “emotional response” concept of art. Almost. But I always fall back to, “If I could do it, or a 5 year old could do it, how is it art?” I’m stuck there.
Cultural hell? Nah, this is like the Emperor’s New Clothes. We’re the only ones who see that he’s naked (and sitting on a toilet, porridge at his feet).
Kim on 22 May 2008 at 8:52 am #
Okay, I freely admit that I’m not an artsy person and I don’t know a VanGogh from a Monet BUT I do appreciate beautiful paintings and other art works. That toilet (and other things like it) are obviously the Jerry Springer of the art world. Just hearing that makes me say WTH. Does that mean that my neighbor who has a used toilet sitting in his front yard is decorating? Cuz I thought it was trash.
And for the record, I love potty humor. Just yesterday at our family dinner with my in-laws I shared a hilarious fart joke from the forum. Yes, tears were streaming from my eyes. But I still don’t find a manniquin on a toilet evocating any emotions or interesting or beautiful.
sheesh.
Freshechelle on 22 May 2008 at 8:55 am #
At the MOMA in NYC, there’s a pile of metal shavings in a corner. My friend brilliantly said to a kid nearby “don’t sneeze, you’ll ruin the art”.
I get that the defenders of most ridiculous of modern art say if it stir emotion in you its art. All I get from the modern stuff is angry which is an emotion. So I guess it that spin works. Ever been to the Picasso museum in Paris? Boy did that piss me off. The house it was in was worth seeing.
As for the “I could have done that” factor. Well, you could have but you didn’t so who’s the fool? The mannequin on a toilet genre or Richard Prince who took photos of advertisement photos and called it art is all so “the emperor has no clothes”.
The good stuff to me is quiet art like Edward Hopper, Andrew Wyeth and the loud stuff like Ruben’s di Medici Cycle at the Louvre.
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 9:21 am #
I like quiet art too, Fresh, but never thought of it in that term. I live about 45 minutes from the Brandywine River Museum in Chadds Ford, PA which houses a great deal of the Wyeths art. It’s a refurbished stone barn right beside the Brandywine. I’m in the right mood before I ever enter. The grounds are worth a stroll, also.
When DH was alive, we used to go there often and have lunch nearby at the Chadd’s Ford Inn. However, when Andrew’s “Helga” series was exhibited, we saw in at the Houston Museum of Fine Art. Which is a great museum in it’s own right.
This country is blessed with the wonderful museums of all types that we have.
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 9:29 am #
Margaret, well then! If it’s an OLD trashcan, it’s even more Questionable Art than before! Lol! Well said, m’dear.
Marie, you’re right — like quotes, what speaks to one, often doesn’t say a word to another. But sometimes I get the feeling the emperor has no clothes and no one wants to admit it first.
doglady, isn’t Van Gogh’s work DREAMY? I loooove it! Even have a few prints in my house. And I try to remember that when he was alive, no one appreciated his work at all, and may have had discussions like this about it. But then . . . I think ‘mannequin on a toilet’ and say to myself, ‘Noooo. It’s not the same. At all.”
See my dilemma?
Lisa H, welcome to the Bus to Cultrual Hell! Isn’t it nice of doglady to stock beverages? I’ll bring some nabs, too, in case one of us needs snackage.
Kay, no, I didn’t see that. Is it on youtube so we can link and watch? Btw, do you guys remember the performance art scene from The Big Lebowski? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 9:37 am #
I have a funny is-it-art story. When DH & I went to see the “Helga” exhibit in Houston, we took my then 5 year old Texas grandson with us. We were also going to the zoo.
While we were looking at the Wyeth paintings, aJason wandered off into a nearby room. We all know that 5 year olds don’t possess a volume control, don’t we? Shortly, he came running back to us, eyes wide with shock, and announced in a very loud voice “Nana, that room has a pictures of nekkid ladies in it!”. This caused everyone in our room to break out laughing. Jason had a very pronounced deep Texas accent. I tried, quietly, to explain the difference between “naked” and “nude”. No dice. They were “nekkid” and no different from his step-daddy’s Playboy in his little mind. Maybe he was right.
We eventually made it to that room and, sure ’nuff, it was full of nekkid lady pictures. I treasure that memory of the day with him. He’s 27 now.
Marie on 22 May 2008 at 9:41 am #
LOL!!!
That has to be the best story EVER!
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 9:43 am #
Kari, I think art is supposed to be representative of life, but some of it can really grab me. It’s like seeing a moment in time or in my life, frozen in place. But in that moment, when I see the art and experience either memories, or a desire to be somewhere or do something, the art can really ‘talk’ to me. So I think you’re right in that art doesn’t always perfectly capture real life, and can only really allude to it.
Kim, humor and art don’t always mix. Well, except for this art award. Maybe you could print up one of your fart jokes, stab a fork in it onto a piece of stale bread, and submit it next year? The prize is 25,000 pounds so it would be worth the trouble!
Fresh, I loooove Rubens. There’s a man who knew how to paint luxuriously bodacious and gorgeous women! Btw, I never ‘got’ Rembrandt until I saw his work in person. You can’t stick a print of that into an art book and get a real sense of his work. Once I saw it in person, though, I was IN AWE. Wow.
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 9:49 am #
As for Wyeth, didn’t he do American landscapes? Or do I have my Wyeths messed up?
Lol! Margaret, I hope you remind your Texas grandson of that incident every chance you get! The accent makes it a perfect story!
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 9:52 am #
I was writing a story once that had some art references. In the Regency period, the Elgin Marbles were on display at the British Museum and still are today. So, when I was in London, I stopped by the museum to have a look-see.
I told my guy about this and he dutifully got a museum map and off we went. I’m a museum fanatic and I was caught along the way by first this display and then that, so by the time i found the Elgin Marble display, my guy was already there.
He was in the center of this huge room, looking around with a confused expression.
“What’s wrong?” I asked.
He frowned. “I don’t see any marbles.”
I looked past him and there, in HUGE slabs on the walls, were the marble frescoes from the Parthenon in Athens. They’re called the Elgin Marbles because Lord Elgin acquired them in the early 1800s. I looked back at my guy. “I see marbles.”
He frowned harder and looked around. “WHERE?”
Then it hit me – he was looking for the kind of marbles that you PLAY with! BWHAHAHA!
Freshechelle on 22 May 2008 at 9:56 am #
KH, those Northern Renaissance dudes really had it going on, right? I know what you mean about Rembrandt. How ’bout Vermeer? I recently visited the Detroit Institue of Art and it’s always so amazing to go to underestimated cities and see what great art they have. I still hope to revisit Worcester Art Museum, they closed as I got there but I bought their cataloge and they’ve got some treasures.
Margaret, I don’t know why I haven’t visited the museum at Chadds Ford, it’s near enough. Maybe you just made my Memorial Day plans for me. Thanks for the tip. I played hookie from work to see the Wyeth exhibit at Philadelphia 2 years ago, it was the perfect birthday gift to myself.
SheridanLA on 22 May 2008 at 10:05 am #
though I am with most of you about many things that are called are and should not be.. but, alas.. the art world is built mostly on reputations, who you know and what type of mystique or persona the artist has… then people flock to see their work or admire it – because they want to be considered “chic” or avant garde or a true collector. So much is not art, but construed as such for whatever reason.
I think there is a difference between art and creative expression.. art is something that evokes awe and almost reverence.. creative expression is what I call my landscape paintings and drawings (the ones I did) – I suppose some might call it art, but to me, “art” is a more noble title to be bestowed upon that which is worthy.
That being said, I have a friend who is a sculpture. I hate most of his work..where there is talent in the composition and construction, I think he tries too hard to be “different” and “artistic” which takes away from what he does.. but that is just me
SheridanLA on 22 May 2008 at 10:11 am #
Marie’s interpretation of the mannequin on a toilet sounds pretty right on.. and in this case, there was a definite social statement and meaning behind the piece – which though aesthetically sucks – for the message, it says a lot. Art is not always about beauty, but it is also about making people think or feel.
Now, the broken glass I saw in St Louis…. looked cool.. but was it worthy of an entire room? no.
I also (don’t hurt me) think that most landscapes and nature paintings are not art.. they are a capturing of nature and something pretty.. but to me, there is rarely life and emotion in them.. Picasso? I can see emotion and life in a lot of his work. Portraits from long ago? Art in that they had to create their own pigments, dyes and mediums.. they were the photographs of their time.. but for the most part, there is no life in them – they are a recording of history. Paintings and photos of little kitties, puppies, etc.. are cute, but not art to me.
SheridanLA on 22 May 2008 at 10:12 am #
I don’t think that there is a one way ticket to cultural hell for anyone’s opinion of it all.. that is the beauty of it.. it is open to interpretation and opinion.
(applies to literature as well… heh)
SheridanLA on 22 May 2008 at 10:14 am #
oh… and because I know you all were dying to hear more *snort* the portraits (forgot to put in there) from long ago are art also in their technique.. true masters in their methods.. so art that way.. but I would not want them on my wall.. there is no emotion there that touches me (again, there are always exceptions)
ok.. I will be quiet now..
Sabrina Jeffries on 22 May 2008 at 10:35 am #
My 5-year-old nephew was in MOMA recently with his parents, and they stopped in front of a Jackson Pollock, and my nephew said, very loudly, something along the lines of, “That’s just crap.”
Everyone around him burst into laughter. My mortified brother quipped, “Everybody’s a critic” and hustled the twins along.
The irony is that they were in NY to see the opening of my sister-in-law’s artist brother’s latest piece of installation art (he’s really good–his latest was favorably reviewed in the New York Times).
I laugh every time I think about my nephew. Clearly, he didn’t get the family’s “art” gene.
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 10:48 am #
Sheridan, no . . . tell us what you REALLY think.
I’m with you about only wanting certain works on my walls. I don’t have a lot of art and what I have, I thought about for a long, long time. Just because it’s awesome in person, doesn’t mean it’ll work in my house!
Sabrina, toooo funny! But out of the mouth’s of babes . . . comes spittal. What’s your sil’s bro’s art like? And what IS ‘installation art?’
evlqn on 22 May 2008 at 10:50 am #
I love art museums and when I lived in LA i went at least twice a year with my sons. It was a planned all day event that we looked forward to. There are two exhibits that stand out as my youngest would call a “duhwaaa??”
The first was a wall of various pieces of cardboard glued at various angles. No paint or design just cardboard. The other was a watercan supended over an open book that tipped once a minute to drop white paint onto the book. My sons enjoyed the wall of tv monitors in the next room much more , but I have to say none of it felt like art to me.
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 10:55 am #
Fresh, the Brandywine is well worth the trip. It’s not large but there are other things in the area. Chock-a-block full of Revolutionary War history. N.C. Wyeth was the 1st one who painted. He got his financial boost in book illustrations. Most notably, “Treasure Island”.
The Wyeth most of us know is N.C.’s son, Andrew. He is known for the paintings he’s done around his farm up the road. Jamie is his son. Jamie’s work is definitely more modern and has a completely different feel when viewed. They are all 3 well represented at the museum. N.C.’ farm is close by and open for tours. I guess there are no other Wyeth artists after Jamie.
Sheesh. You think they’s pay me for writing reviews.
HelenK on 22 May 2008 at 10:56 am #
Karen: LMAO at the Smithsonian. I hadn’t heard that story, but somehow I’m not surprised. I think I’ll start labeling my 5 year old as ‘genius’, after all, his grandmother sure seems to think so!
Margaret: The next time the dog annoys me, I’m taking a picture of it and calling it art. Of course, I have a feeling that just seeing a picture of it will still raise my blood pressure, but I’ll just keep telling myself it’s ‘art’. LOL
So many funny art stories. It makes me happy I’m in such good company going to Cultural Hell (of course I prefer the Emporor’s New Clothes analogy better – we’re the only ones brave enough to say something), but I think Karen’s Marble story is the best. So funny!
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 10:57 am #
LOL Sabrina. I guess if you want the truth, take a 5 year old. They calls ‘em as they sees ‘em.
Yeah. What the heck is installation art? When I think of installation, I think of carpet. LOL
Lisa H on 22 May 2008 at 11:12 am #
I smirking to myself about the word “porrige” I just recently read Susan Elizabeth Phillip’s novel, “Ain’t She Sweet” and the hero is English and requests porrige for breakfast…Sugar Beth, the heroine says, “No one over the third grade says the word porrige.”
I guess its an English thing.
Freshechelle on 22 May 2008 at 12:00 pm #
One visit to the Philly Art Museum, we saw a guy breaking into our car. In the melee that ensued (yeah, I actually just wrote that), a museum guard said to us “Hey, keep it down. They got art in there.”
Same day a guard directed me to the ladies room by pointing to a statue and saying, “You go down to Pericles and make a right.”
krystal on 22 May 2008 at 12:11 pm #
Let me state that I am NOT AT ALL artistically inclined. I like art. I like looking at art. But I cannot for the life of me DO art. My stick people don’t even really turn out right when I try to draw them. So I figure that if I go to an art exhibit, I should see art. Not stuff that I could do. If I can do it, then it’s not art.
Sabrina Jeffries on 22 May 2008 at 12:34 pm #
“Installation art” is when they do these giant complicated pieces that take up a whole room (or football field). There’s an explanation of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installation_art
You can see an exhibit of Charlie’s art at http://www.exitart.org/site/pub/exhibition_programs/charles_juhasz/index.html
My favorite one (from pictures anyway) is an older one at http://www.fabricworkshop.org/exhibitions/juhasz.php
Unfortunately, Charlie’s tend to be exhibited in other countries, so I don’t get to see them in person.
He’s mostly based in Puerto Rico now.
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 1:20 pm #
eviqn, I like that — “duhwaaaa?” Heh! Cardboard, hm? And they didn’t even bother to paint it? Lazy artists.
Margaret, I need to look into Wyeth! I don’t know how I missed them.
Fresh, lol! The security guards have probably seen it all. I was at a museum a few weeks ago looking at Tiffany stained glass and there was a guard who’d obviously had too much caffeine on his break. Every time someone would walk past a certain exhibit, he’d blurt out, “WATCH THE GLASS!” Well . . . it’s an exhibit of glass, so OF COURSE we were aLL going to WATCH THE GLASS! Lol! What a guy! Though NOT as funny as your “They got art in there.” That’s priceless.
krystal, I sorta feel the same way. I mean, I can sketch a picture, but that’s it. And even then it’s usually flat on one side, or off center or out of proportion. Some art — even some modern art, I ‘get.’ But I don’t ‘get’ the ‘just to make you mad’ art. I could do that, and I don’t really recognize it as artistically expressive, but JUST expressive.
Kathy/Cookiedough on 22 May 2008 at 1:29 pm #
My whole family has an artsitic bent one way or the other. My eldest sister Susan paints birds and sells them on the internet. sadly I don’t have the web address right now
Lorraine is disgustingly talented and can do jewelry, stained glass, drawing, watercolours and oils. She can sing and play piano too.
Maureen does needlecrafts and some tole painting.
Debbie thinks she doesn’t have artistic talent but has been making incredible felt Christmas ornaments for years.
Mark is a talented photographer and drummer.
Brian is an amazing cartoonist and can make a monster mask as good as any hollywood dude.
Our mom was talented in watercolours and oils.
Our father drew cartoons for fun and made buildings for a living. He also enjoyed photography.
I can draw, paint and my current artistic expression is making video collages of life.
Kathy/Cookiedough on 22 May 2008 at 1:34 pm #
now that my family brag is done
…
MARBLES!!! muwhahahahaha! that was funny!
I think art is subjective and everyone is entitled to theri opinion of what makes art arty
but my opinion is that the lady on the john barfing ain’t!
elsiehogarth on 22 May 2008 at 1:54 pm #
To me Art and History go hand and hand and I love them both. I love the Impressionists: Manet, Monet, Matisse, Degas, Renoir etc because of the country vacation/life style. I love Pablo Picasso. Especially his Blue & Pink Period. I own 5 signed/numbered lithographcs. French artists like Francis Boucher & Jean Honore Fragonard have beautiful portraits. English artists like Tomas Frye, Marmaduke Cradock, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Thomas Gainsborough, William Hogarth (family ancestor/printmaker & painter) have great landscapes and portraits.
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 2:23 pm #
Karen, I’m no expert of the Wyeth family. I got interested in them when I first moved to this region. I think just about everybody’s familiar with Andrew. One of Jamie’s first paintings when he was young is titled “Portrait of a Pig”. Of a pink pig, it’s enormous and was permanently housed at Brandywine last time I looked. They are an interesting family. There were several other talented artists in the family. Just not as famous. Several were women.
My biggest thrill was living just a few miles from James Michener. Well, give or take 50 miles. I thought he was buried there but went to look it up. Imagine my surprise to learn that he lived his last few years in Austin. Died & is buried there. A neighbor of yours, Sabrina. I waded thru all of his book. And waded was definitely the word sometimes. Especially when he built, tore down and rebuilt the world for many long pages before he got into the story of “Centennial”. Also “Chesapeake”. I lived here when I read that one.
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 2:25 pm #
Yes, I was wondering if the Elgin marbles had an aggie among them for shooting. hee hee The first time I saw them mentioned in a book, I envisioned giant marbles being pushed across the floor to the British Museum. Bet that would be noisy.
So, what do they actually look like, Karen?
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 2:34 pm #
Wow, Elsie! You truly are an art lover. I like most of the ones y ou mention. Picasso doesn’t do it for me. When I read Regency romances, I picture Constables. His paintings just seem to go hand in hand with that period of time.
Nicole Jordan on 22 May 2008 at 2:58 pm #
Sheesh, that is a little unbelievable to me, Karen, lol. And I don’t think you’re the one going to cultural hell, but if you do, I’ll probably be ahead of you.
Of course, some folks equate fiction to art and have these same kinds of arguments about what’s worthy of distinction. Haven’t you heard that romance belongs in the toilet? I think a lot of us here would disagree greatly. *grin*
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 3:51 pm #
Kathy, what a talented family! I a SO impressed!
Elsie, you listed many of my fave artists, too! We have similar tastes. I especially love Renoir and Matisse.
Margaret, I read Centennial and loved it! He was a very detailed author, and oh could he weave a story.
The Elgin marbles are big relief scultped marble panels that used to decorate the top row of the Pantheon in Athens. They depict all sorts of Greek gods and goddesses in various stories.
During a period of political unrest (which accounts for a lot of Greek history) Lord Elgin bouht the marble relief panels from the then-govt. When he ran into financial trouble later on, Parliament authorized the purchase and now they are in London.
Now, of course, the Greek government wants them back and they have become an area of contention.
Nicole, I think some people see romances as frothy, but wouldn’t argue that they aren’t actual books. I’m not suggesting this is bad art (though that does exist), but that it’s art at all.
What about Escher? Or Dali? Ya’ll like them?
Suzanne Enoch on 22 May 2008 at 4:08 pm #
My definition of art is that it has to be something I haven’t accidently thrown together on my way to the trash can. I mean, I can write, but if it’s something I can put together, then it’s not ART.
Paula on 22 May 2008 at 4:09 pm #
Elsie I’m with you on your list of artists. Karen H, I saw that same thing but on the BBC News about the so called art and the Turner prize. Give us some good old fashioned art and not so much of this new art c%*p!!
The other year one of the exhibits for the turner prize was a ’stuffed cow’! I mean come on. Would any of you really want to go and queue for a couple of hours to see a stuffed cow or a mannequinsitting on a loo? let alone pay for the privilege? Not me.
cail on 22 May 2008 at 5:04 pm #
oh, a topic I LOVE. I do NOT think that the toilet piece is really art. I’m of the ‘create something most ppl can’t do and thats art’ school.
i don’t really like most modern art either.
Kathy/Cookiedough on 22 May 2008 at 5:52 pm #
Karen, right after I posted that comment, I wanted to have you take it off!
It really didn’t fit with the what makes it art topic. Just a big brag on my part.
Let’s just put it down to fuzzy logic- my brain is on information overload and I can’t tune it out.
To get to the topic. people in Nova Scotia really love the late folk artist Maud Lewis.
http://www.lighthouse.ca/maud.html
I see her art and think it’s the work of a 10 yr old. I like it alright but it doesn’t stir me the way, say, The Mona Lisa or The Girl With the pearl Earring– did anyone see that movie?
Hey, Colin Firth was in it!!!
ahhh, there I typed about art…now I’m going back to pulling the covers over my head- just hope the cat doesn’t lay on me and I suffocate!
Kathy/Cookiedough on 22 May 2008 at 5:58 pm #
I actually have no prints or lithographs in my home. I was lucky enough to have art buying parents and those have been passed down to all of us. I have quite a few.
One of my mom’s and three by my sister are up, as well as an abstract smooshy watercolour I did.
Ann in IL on 22 May 2008 at 6:04 pm #
I hope I live on the “bus route” cuz I’m one of the “I just don’t get it” crowd.
I love identifiable art. You know. A flower that looks like a flower. etc.
My favorite medium is watercolors and landscapes are my favorite sublect. Still life comes in second.
Picasso offends me. Were I to spend my hard-earned money to visit a large museum, I would bypass all the so-called Modern/New Age Art.
My home has about 15 originals – 2 oils and the rest are watercolors. One petal of a hollyhock watercolor has eight different shades of red/pink. To me that screams TALENT.
I volunteer to make goodies for the bustrip.
Sabrina Jeffries on 22 May 2008 at 6:28 pm #
I posted an answer about “installation art” above. First, it disappeared, because Wordpress marked it as spam, so I unmarked it, and Wordpress stuck it in where I’d posted it before. Except that everyone has already probably read past that. So scroll up.
Sorry, I’m cranky. I’m having computer issues today.
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 6:34 pm #
Kathy, I never heard of Maud Lewis. So, I went to take a peek at her work. Other than the dust pan and the sea shell, I like it. I don’t think a 6 yr old could do it. I like the clear colors and clean lines. It looks like what I imagine the weather in Nova Scotia is like.
Karen, I moved to PA in 1976. Michener was still living here at the time. He was my favorite author. I think it’s amazing that he would move to the location he was writing about. I remember wen he was living in Texas to write that book. Then, back here to write Chesapeake. It drove me crazy that he spent 150 pages recreating the world repeatedly. Just to form a nugget of gold. I can’t even remember is that particular nugget was ever found. But I did love the book.
Did you watch the mini-series? Whatever happened to those anyway? Nobody does them anymore.
Margaret Garland on 22 May 2008 at 6:40 pm #
Sabrina, I”ve had that happen to me. I thought it was because I was putting a complete URL in the post. But that wasn’t it. Wordpress seems to be the one with the problem.
Computer issues can definitely lead to crankiness. No apologies necessary.
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 6:45 pm #
Paula, I read three or four news sites first thing every morning and the BBC always manages to crack me up!
Kathy, it’s not braggin’ if it’s true. It didn’t look out of order to me at all — it’s sort of kewl to see all of that talent coming from one place.
Ann, bring your brownies! It’s going to be a full load. (Btw, the hollyhock sounds gorgeous!)
Sabrina, I liked the fabric work by Charlie, too, but a few of the others were a bit beyond my comprehension. Still, NONE of them looked lazy and they were all complex and multidimensional. See, it’s not that I mind it when something that doesn’t ’speak’ to me is deemed art, it’s when people give the title ‘art’ to istuff thrown out there to make a statement with no effort at the artistic aspects. Charlie’s work, while off the main path, still says art to me, even though it’s not art that I, myself, really dig.
I hope that makes sense
Kathy/Cookiedough on 22 May 2008 at 7:01 pm #
Margaret I like Maud Lewis too, don’t get me wrong, but I feel like a disloyal Nova Scotian because I’m not ga ga over her work.
I went to the opening of her permanent collection at the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia. Her little painted house sits in a corner of the gallery. There were the assorted dressed in black pretentious art lovers who looked for a deeper meaning in her work than she liked using colour.
I was much like zee Carrie Bradshaw, snickering in the corner, but in much more subdued clothes in a way bigger size than 0
Kim on 22 May 2008 at 7:56 pm #
>>>>>>>>Kim, humor and art don’t always mix. Well, except for this art award. Maybe you could print up one of your fart jokes, stab a fork in it onto a piece of stale bread, and submit it next year? The prize is 25,000 pounds so it would be worth the trouble!
I am SO doing this! Bahaha. Of course, the paper and bread will be tax deductible.
You made a good point, KarenH. I do look for humor in most things. And most art just isn’t funny, is it?
Karen Hawkins on 22 May 2008 at 8:33 pm #
Kathy, I think a lot of people ‘read’ things into various artistic works that would shock the artist if they knew. Once they die, it’s like their work is up for an immediate interpretation free-for-all. “The bright colors are an expression of her deep familial anger at her father’s desertion at age four.” Meanwhile, if the artist was alive, they’d probably say something like, “The bright colors?” Shrugs. “They’re pretty.”
Kim, if you win, I’m going to expect some of your uber incredible Christmas fudge to arrive in the mail.
You know, I think art can be funny. Certainly Dali’s work has some humor in it. And I’ve seen some wonderful pictures of children that were laugh-worthy. But you do have to look for it.
Kay on 22 May 2008 at 8:41 pm #
Cookie, Carrie wound up with the Russian, too. So real life is now way like SITC!
I love art, but I agree with the 5 year old, Sabrina.
Sabrina Jeffries on 22 May 2008 at 9:29 pm #
KarenH, I totally understand what you’re saying. I would really like to see some of Charlie’s stuff in person–I don’t think it’s possible to evaluate installation without being, well, in the installation.
My problem with art is that I can’t even tell when it’s taken any effort. I always have to ask Ursula if something is just a photoshopped image done badly. I can’t tell a skilled artist from an unskilled one.
But then I have no fashion sense either. I’m not a visual person.
Sabrina Jeffries on 22 May 2008 at 9:31 pm #
Margaret, putting a url in does seem to trigger it, because spammers usually fill their posts with links. I know that’s why it targeted it. I just wish I’d realized it sooner. Or that once I approved the post, WP had put it at the bottom.
evlqn on 23 May 2008 at 5:18 am #
I remember one time I had taken my sons to see the Terra Cotta Warriors from China exhibit and part of the show were these enormous clay vases. My youngest was about 4 or 5 and he kept asking what the placards said on each vase, after about the 7th or 7th time I told him it was a wine vessel he turned to me and announced. “They sure were a a bunch of winos.” Naturally he DID NOT use his inside voice.
Karen Hawkins on 23 May 2008 at 9:46 am #
eviqn, I’ve always wanted to see those! Of course, I had no idea they were all winos. Puts a whole new spin on why they’re buried, doesn’t it? Lol!
Btw, how tall are those statues? I’ve always wondered.
evlqn on 23 May 2008 at 12:31 pm #
Karen, they are lifesize and so are the Terra Cotta Horses. It was such an amazing exhibit! Almost as good as the Tut exhibit.
My darling son is still as forthright today,if he thinks it he says it.
Pesky on 10 Jun 2008 at 11:38 am #
I love art. I think it defines society and what is acceptable during the period it was created.
Todays Maplethorpe (is it pornography or art) and Christ in Urine would get you thrown in jail for heresy not so long ago.
I have an art degree, and one thing I tell people who ask me about art is this:
If it speaks to you, makes you want to learn more about it, if it moves you into action, then to you that is art. Since we are all moved by different things, art is different to all of us.
Which is a much more specific reaction than my friend whom I went to art college with who insists “if it creates emotion of any sort it is art”….which is probably why he was delighted when a janitor beat up his art project with a broom handle because he said it was “evil” (trust me…it was abstract…a large black bag surrounded by barbed wire with tenticles coming out of it…interesting…not evil)