![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thursday, December 11, 1997 Published at 13:34 GMT Talking Point Has art lost its way? Your reaction <% ballot="36816" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:
Pickled animals versus the Mona Lisa? I'd say Leonardo wins hands down. I
think a lot of modern "artists" are trying to get over their lack of talent and
creativity by indulging in the absurd.
Tom Wolfe wrote a wonderful book detailing the
art world's woes in "The Painted Word." Art
is now the selling of garbage, with its meaning
more important than its quality - it is anti-
borgoise, but also anti-humanity.
We need more serious artists, and fewer going
for governmental grants.
I think to say 'art has lost its way' is paradoxical. The best art has always
come from being adventurous and tried new methods. To retain the excitement
and exploration of reactions and emotions which is what a piece of art should do
is all part of the basic concept of art. Perhaps the traditional notion of art
being for pleasure and just 'pretty pictures' is a little lame when artists
have the chance to actually explore whole philosophies rather than producing
meaningless pictures. If anything, art is finding its way.
It is not art that has lost its way but the society of which it is an
expression. Confusion in values, including the meaning of life, which is
characteristic of the modern cybernetic world, finds its reflection in art as
it does in individual and societal life in general. The result tends to be
withdrawal from one's former attachments to be replaced by general apathy
towards future expectations. Therefore, art has not lost its way but found the
aesthetic equivalent of the culture's condition. Deprived of inherent values,
art can then be appreciated primarily by virtue of its technical performance.
For some artists the only way to get noticed is to
shock and provoke, rather than rely on producing good art which
may get lost among the many good pieces around. Some artists have
tried so hard to be original that the only thing that can positively
be said about their work is that it is different. Can't we encourage
the many enthusiastic artists around not only to produce art which
pleases and inspires, but also endures beyond the immediate desire
for something new and different.
The more renowned practitioners of modern or conceptual art have achieved
notoriety purely through the promotion of an idea and not for any technical
ability or intrinsic talent. Such ideas are not the domain of a highly
perceptive clique but are within the capability of the vast majority of the
populus. In the absence of a non subjective measure of the competence behind
a 'work of art' there can be no logical ranking of merit. Proponents of modern
art celebrate this as an admirable facet of their discipline and exploit this
anomaly to gain reward without the investment of commitment, devotion and time
to develop a proficiency in the production of their exhibits. No other field
is subject to this frankly contemptible failure of self regulation and the art
world has justifiably attracted derision and hostility for its folly.
Congratulations to Gillian Wearing, this year's Turner Prize Winner. By comparison to the "dead" and unoriginal efforts of previous winners
(Damien Hurst par excellence), her art is vibrant, exciting and witty.
Where is the wit in a still life - more accurately still "death" - of a
cow or sheep in a glass jar? I also liked the other interactive bench of one of the other candidates; I sincerely hope that this is evidence of the art pendulum swinging back to sanity.
Most of the gallery fodder is designed to shock; it's appeal will fade as we become accustomed to each excess. The important thing to remember about all art is that it must appeal in some way to the viewer / listener. If it doesn't, then it is not art for you. If it requires interpretation, then it probably only exists in the mind of the
interpreter (unless after consideration, you agree with his/her
interpretation).
As can be clearly seen paralleled in not only other areas of the "Arts" but
also in society generally, "art" is undergoing an almost inevitable period of
extremely rapid change. Follow the history, from thousands of years of cave
art, to five hundred years of canvas art, to a few decades of conceptual art,
to but a few years in which "anything goes". This is a highly exciting time,
but so very ephemeral. How many of these new works will physically exist in a
few decades time?
Yes I think that modern art has lost its way.The Turner prize does not have to be
given unless the artists deserve it. Think what will happen if Oxbridge
started accepting students with D and E grades just because no one with good
grades applied. In my humble opinion the Turner Prize should be withheld and the
money accumulated until the artists wake up and give the world and the nation
real art even if it happens once in a decade. You do not have to give the
Turner prize just for the sake of it.
Art is the expression of deeper meanings, emotions and shared human experience by means other than standard language. That is what art is about, let's get with it instead of being stuffy and old fashioned.
Modern art is needed by the industry that surrounds it.
For example if the Turner prize was not contentious people such as the lady from the Tate magazine would be out of a job, as their function is to explain it to the world in general.
Modern art really means the post Cezanne job of saying "this is not bad, this is good".
Art has not lost it's way but has been hijacked by aliens from Planet Curator.
Art has most certainly lost its way... The simplest example for this would be
that, we don't see more qualitative art these days. Why do paintings of
Vincent
Van Gough sell at enormous prices these days? Just because they are of a
better
quality than todays paintings?? Somehow, the number of good artists seems to
have been going down.
Modern art has become little more than another
consumer product, aimed at a society that
would rather bask in illusionary kudos than
admit that most so-called modern 'art' is no more
nor less than pretentious rubbish. A society
which dare not evaluate the evidence of their
own eyes without the dubious advice of critics
and media. The result is that 'artists' must
increasingly find new limits for how far they can
cynically test the patience and gullibility of
people for whom they clearly have nothing but
contempt. Most modern art is produced by
people of no talent and few motor skills. That it
attracts crowds is no great advertisement -
many of the viewers are there to be seen there.
If you stand in front of an artefact with wonder, not being able to relate to
it in any way, You can justifiably doubt its value as a work of art. Maybe we
should start searching for true art outside the exhibitions and in the hearts
of the people.
To say that 'art has lost its way' is to assume that 'art' has a
mind of its own. Well, it doesn't. The problem today is that many
of the practitioners of art do not have a mind of their own. Nor have they
the discipline and the burning desire to strike out and do something
unique, imaginative and... well... brilliant. There is to much faddism, too
much imitation which results in art that resembles a too watered down
soup. Art, as we know it, will improve only when the viewing public demands of the artists that they put forth their finest creative effort.
Art has been called the "shock of the new" it would be a sad day for society
if
we lost that excitement.
Art has lost its way since the introduction of photography, television and
mass
communications generally. Now we have two things going on: the real artists
who try to produce work which expresses something important; and the
confidence
tricksters who work on the gullibility of the public by passing off rubbish as
art.
While "art" in the purest sense is created from personal, internal,
unquantifiable drives, "art" still needs to be a voice, to communicate. What
possible good is something if its audience doesn't know what it is, or can't
relate to it? If what is created doesn't make sense to its intended
audience,
then it hasn't succeeded as "art."
Art may reflect life, but
like an image in a
fractured mirror,
it is often difficult
to see the pattern.
The day art panders to what a small elitist minority thinks it should be is
the
day art truly loses its way.
As the old cliche says "I don't know much about art...." but reading about
these exhibits here today, they sound really exciting. I feel that I want to
rush to the Tate and see them today! Unfortunately I don't live in London,
which is another issue! Like a lot of people I expect, I don't regularly visit art galleries, but when
I do I usually find lots to enjoy. If 'controversy' does make people flock to
a show, perhaps that's a good thing.
Surely art shouldn't be restricted to prescribed forms? I heard the other day
about the TV commercial maker who has become an artist. Why isn't a well-made,
exciting TV commercial considered art?
How can art lose is its way? It doesn't have one. ART IS! More to the
point,
it is, as beauty, in the eye of the beholder (or in the case of music, the ear
of the listener). I may not appreciate it, I may not like its form, I may not
like its "message," but I cannot deny it is art. To the extent it is
appreciated by others, it will remain art. Only that which is not appreciated
by others can truly be said to be without artistic value. I cannot say for
others what art is and I will not have others saying for me what art is. We
must all be content with a simple reality: Art is.
I don't believe art has lost its way.
I think that the work being described as "art"
is a more diverse range than ever before.
This leads traditionalists to proclaim that
it is not art, which in my opinion is wrong.
Art is surely about the 'doing' aspect, not
what the category it fits into.
What do you mean "has art lost its way"?
Who is to determine the "way of art". Doesn't art create its way through
the accumulative production of people.
The "shock artists" as you tend to call
them are just the symptom of a new way
being created.
Art (inc. music & film) has certainly lost its way. Most notably because the
art which is being lauded is the product of instant solutions and rarely these
days, leaves the viewer in awe of the artist's talent. It is often the result
of hype and decreasing talent, which offers sparse inspiration.
No, art has not lost its way. It just needs to find a new way to express
itself. Like all postmodern art, film and literature there is no longer
original creativity. So a way has to be found to recreate, or reinvent, what
already exists in a new, refreshing, controversial way. That's why the
artists
that have been nominated for the Turner Prize were nominated. In America, art
is getting old and tired, as is America. As art historian, Robert Hughes,
recently stated "The model of progress seems played out."
Though the Turner Prize has its faults, foremost amongst which is the way it
creates false celebrities out of one or two young artists to the detriment of
their peers, it is still serving a valuable role in raising the profile of
contemporary and conceptual art in the UK.
This seems a silly question from over here. Art is inanimate and so cannot
"lose its way". First, what is the "way" which has been lost? Second, which of
us has "lost it"? Perhaps artists such as those who have "made the cut" are
trying to find, on our behalf, a way that we have lost collectively. The
history of human consciousness tends, in my view, more towards an enterprise
of
"finding" than of "losing". Admittedly, when such artifacts as a particular
kind of civilization -- such as the one now passing whose end we are calling
"The Machine Age" -- begin disintegrating, then both the foreground and
background seem equally dominated by rubbish. Like it or not, however,
artists
are among the few -- not those of us who would hark back -- who do
eventually
find the way, as distasteful to the rest of us as such foraging may be.
Perhaps the offensive works should encourage the culturati to emerge from
their
cacoons and to begin applying indignation to the creation once again of human dignity. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||