Tracey Emin

[Gizmo]

As I said, they're certainly useful. I just think that amount of talent required to be a photographer is minimal. It's more functional than artistic in my view and the amount of pretension that goes with the field is absurd. It's for people who want to be artists but don't have the talent to draw, paint or sculpt. They can roll with their pretentious nature and it's too subjective to call them charlatans.

 

This:

 

 

v

 

 

No contest. One is a beautiful, artistic work, utilizing skill, knowledge, experience, talent, composition, a keen eye etc, the other is just the efforts of some pretentious ******* with zero talent.

[cosanostra]

This:

 

 

v

 

 

No contest. One is a beautiful, artistic work, utilizing skill, knowledge, experience, talent, composition, a keen eye etc, the other is just the efforts of some pretentious ******* with zero talent.

 

Genuinely, I have no idea which ones you're referring to as the good work and the nonsense.

I like the painting but it's nothing special and have no opinion on the photo. I'm sure that it's a nice landscape and everything but if I stood there with my camera, I could do the same. It's not art and it takes zero talent because it's just a photo. As for the painting, it's kind of cool and I like the colours and the effect but I don't think it took any great skill to produce. Maybe the skill was in the idea in the first place, who knows? Neither impress me in any way but if I had to choose what one I'd have on my wall, I'd choose the painting.

[jamboceej]

Is that not the artwork from the cover of Elephant Stone? Bloody similar anyway.

 

Edit: She Bangs the Drums maybe, remembered Elephant Stone was red.

[Chris Benoit]

Is that not the artwork from the cover of Elephant Stone? Bloody similar anyway.

 

Edit: She Bangs the Drums maybe, remembered Elephant Stone was red.

 

 

Think it was the album cover

[jamboceej]

Think it was the album cover

Nah, the album cover's green.

[jamboceej]

It's not She Bangs the Drums either actually, i give up!

[Shapes]

I like Pavement art. Julian Beever's stuff is great.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

Is that not the artwork from the cover of Elephant Stone? Bloody similar anyway.

 

Edit: She Bangs the Drums maybe, remembered Elephant Stone was red.

 

The first pic was by Jackson Pollock. I quite like his work, although it's fair to say that I can't really rationalize why I like it and I can understand why others wouldn't. The Stone Roses artwork was inspired by Pollock.

 

The second pic is by Ansel Adams, and a great example of why photography can be considered art, IMHO (although the copy of the photo Wheatley used doesn't do it justice). You need to have a capacity for composition, making best use of light and also some technical skill as a photographer (less so nowadays but still important). Here's a better copy of what I think is the same photo...

 

http://www.archives....snake-river.jpg

[Floyd]

It's not She Bangs the Drums either actually, i give up!

 

Not sure what cover it is either, but I think I had the T Shirt!

[Greedy_Jambo]

Ive just watched 3 clips of that Emin burd on youtube.

 

Thick as mince.

[The Mighty Thor]

Some of the olympic class seethe at the start of this thread is tremendous

 

I must admit to not getting a lot of the modern stuff. Perhaps I don't have the imagination to see a half pallet of empty cardboard boxes as anything other than a half pallet of empty cardboard boxes.

 

In terms of photography some of it can be absolutely stunning.

 

Pavement art? You watch these guys in action and see the outcome from a pavement and a box of chalks and I think actually that takes a fair degree of talent.

[Gregory House M.D.]

I like Pavement art. Julian Beever's stuff is great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's class

[Shapes]

That's class

 

See Billy, not all art is like "taking a shite on a white floor and claiming it has some deeper meaning than it just being a shite"

 

 

:greggy:

[Boomstick]

This:

 

 

v

 

 

No contest. One is a beautiful, artistic work, utilizing skill, knowledge, experience, talent, composition, a keen eye etc, the other is just the efforts of some pretentious ******* with zero talent.

 

I do hope you're not slagging the painting.

 

JP was insanely talented.

 

Photography's great but I could take that picture. I don't have the patience to create something like Jackson Pollock.

[Gizmo]

I do hope you're not slagging the painting.

 

JP was insanely talented.

 

Photography's great but I could take that picture. I don't have the patience to create something like Jackson Pollock.

 

You are honestly saying you couldn't get a big canvas, lay it on the ground, and splatter layers of different coloured paint on it?

 

What does that painting convey to you? The best I could divine from it is that the artist may have been in a/various emotional states when splattering the paint onto the canvas. That's it. I'd love someone to explain what the painting means, as I do not get it. At all.

[Boris]

You are honestly saying you couldn't get a big canvas, lay it on the ground, and splatter layers of different coloured paint on it?

 

What does that painting convey to you? The best I could divine from it is that the artist may have been in a/various emotional states when splattering the paint onto the canvas. That's it. I'd love someone to explain what the painting means, as I do not get it. At all.

 

Why does a painting have to actually mean anything though? It's like literature...a story can be just that, a story, a cracking yarn. No need for sub plots and themes etc etc

 

Similarily, a painting can simply look good, catch the eye, without having some major theme or story underlying it.

 

Well, that's my take on it, anyway...

[Gizmo]

Why does a painting have to actually mean anything though? It's like literature...a story can be just that, a story, a cracking yarn. No need for sub plots and themes etc etc

 

Similarily, a painting can simply look good, catch the eye, without having some major theme or story underlying it.

 

Well, that's my take on it, anyway...

 

It's a fair point, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. But I don't see anything in the painting that suggests "insane talent" as Boomstick suggests Jackson Pollock possessed.

[Boris]

It's a fair point, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. But I don't see anything in the painting that suggests "insane talent" as Boomstick suggests Jackson Pollock possessed.

 

 

TBF, Pollock is pretty much accepted as being a great artist. As you said earlier, was it his mental state/angst that drove his talent? That could be said for other artists too, in all the various guises of the arts.

 

But I also agree with you that it isn't always obvious from a painting/work of art that the artist is on another plane.

 

There was a very good series on BBC4 called The Art of Russia, hosted by Andrew Graham-Dixon, which I thought was brilliant, not just for the development of art in Russia and so the history of it all, but AG-D is a very good communicator about how he perceives the work in question and it was those insights that made me look at things differently.

 

I think it's very easy to see things as being pretentious (don't get me wrong, I'm suitably unqualified and cynical to think this too) but at the same time I'm happy to accept that there are subtexts and meaning in art through metaphor, allusion & allegory.

 

So really, I suppose what I'm saying is live and let live. No-one can tell you what you should like and equally you don't really need to have a reason for liking or disliking something too.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

It's all about taste I suppose but for me Caude Monet's work has always been my absolute favourite.

 

His early work was so very precise and accurate and then as his eyesight deteriorated his work became impressionist and some would argue far better... I like his early and later work personally but his garden works are my favourite of all.

 

 

 

[PsychocAndy]

i think it was tracy emin who did the unmade bed

 

 

It was.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bed

 

It wasn't even original "art". The guy Bill Drummond out of the KLF done it about 10-15 years before in Liverpool.

 

 

I don't get art myself, I'd rather watch a Droopy cartoon than look at the Mona Lisa. I understand I'm in the minority but, it's just not for me.

The only art I've seen that I thought I'd like to buy/steal used to be in Lauries Bar, now the Brauhaus, and it was the Hearts crest done with nails and thread.

[Taffin]

I really like art, not in the 'wow so and so is incredible' type way, I just like some things that either look really cool or make me think. You don't have to be an art snob to get it. BB doesn't like a lot of art, but the fact he likes the street paintings means he does like art itself though, it is just a matter of finding things that do it for you.

 

I love photography and as Cosa says, most people could probably do it, given the time. However, often the moment has passed by the time a cretin like me can get the settings right and have taken a few goes at it and before you know it the sun has gone, or the animal has moved or quite simply I can't see that what I am looking at would make a great photo.

 

I have a canvas on my wall, it was 20 quid from Tk Maxx, it is painted, not printed, but I have no idea who painted it or anything about it. I love it though, it makes me think, I perceive it differently to how my friends often see it, but surprisingly lots of people comment on how much they like it...it was less that a ticket to a football game, but price isn't what makes a painting.

[scottishguy]

I don't rate photography as an art form at all.

It's useful for recording history, chronicling, primary evidence, visual aid, preserving happy memories etc but as an art form, I think it's too accessible to show who's talented and who's not. Anyone can take a decent photo given the right equipment. Some photos are cool to look at but it still requires so little skill to take that to me, it's just a photo.

Some guy has opened a photo gallery shop near me in the West End and the current exhibition is full of portraits of local neds looking sad or laughing or threatening with price tags of ?125. Who the hell is going to want some local ned who probably just robbed their car last week on their wall? It's pretentious and a total "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario.

Every tosser with a camera thinks they're an artist these days.

Let's see you draw or paint what your photographing and see what talent you have.

It's just not for me.

 

The bit in bold is like saying "give anyone a decent set of pots and pans they'll make decent dinner"

Photography can be an art though.

[Boomstick]

You are honestly saying you couldn't get a big canvas, lay it on the ground, and splatter layers of different coloured paint on it?

 

What does that painting convey to you? The best I could divine from it is that the artist may have been in a/various emotional states when splattering the paint onto the canvas. That's it. I'd love someone to explain what the painting means, as I do not get it. At all.

 

No, I don't think I could create that painting.

 

I could splatter paint on a canvas but that wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive as what Pollock did. "There are no mistakes" is something he said about his unorthodox style.

 

He was an innovator. He moved away from using brushes and easels and mixed sand with his paint. You could argue that anyone could do that but the fact is they didn't, he did.

 

He was brilliant.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

It's all about taste I suppose but for me Caude Monet's work has always been my absolute favourite.

 

His early work was so very precise and accurate and then as his eyesight deteriorated his work became impressionist and some would argue far better... I like his early and later work personally but his garden works are my favourite of all.

 

Same boat for me, his garden works are magnificent.

 

I've been lucky enough to have visited Moent's house and gardens at Giverny, which have been maintained throughout the years.

Unfortunately I was quite young at the time, and didn't realise how truly brilliant the place was!

 

The Water Lilies and the Japanese bridge ascend to a whole new level of beauty when witnessed in real life, IMO.

 

Well worth a visit if anyone is in Normandy.

[cosanostra]

The bit in bold is like saying "give anyone a decent set of pots and pans they'll make decent dinner"

Photography can be an art though.

 

Cooking is something that can be taught and learned.

Talent as an artist isn't something that can be taught or learned IMO.

Photography can be an art if you go with the definition of defining art as an expression of some sort but it's just not for me. It's just taking photos, anyone with a camera can do it and it takes little talent.

Art to me is about talent and seeing people create things that 99.99% of other people on earth couldn't. Anyone can take a photo and all of the "keen eye" chat just doesn't wash with me.

Like I said, it's for people who like the idea of being artists but were unlucky enough to be born without the talent.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Same boat for me, his garden works are magnificent.

 

I've been lucky enough to have visited Moent's house and gardens at Giverny, which have been maintained throughout the years.

Unfortunately I was quite young at the time, and didn't realise how truly brilliant the place was!

 

The Water Lilies and the Japanese bridge ascend to a whole new level of beauty when witnessed in real life, IMO.

 

Well worth a visit if anyone is in Normandy.

 

 

Good stuff. Always wanted to visit Giverny, wee student at my work went there a couple of years ago and came back with some crackin' photos.

 

Bang on the Monet!

[Kendorage]

Cooking is something that can be taught and learned.

Talent as an artist isn't something that can be taught or learned IMO.

Photography can be an art if you go with the definition of defining art as an expression of some sort but it's just not for me. It's just taking photos, anyone with a camera can do it and it takes little talent.

Art to me is about talent and seeing people create things that 99.99% of other people on earth couldn't. Anyone can take a photo and all of the "keen eye" chat just doesn't wash with me.

Like I said, it's for people who like the idea of being artists but were unlucky enough to be born without the talent.

 

I think the talent argument is a dangerous road to go down. Essentially, it's about creativity. A photographer fills a frame in the same way that an artist fills the canvas - it's about organising inner thoughts and capturing interplay between self and external reality. Any judgements as to whether something is good or not is an external one made by the viewer of art; taste is as much a political and cultural judgement as an aesthetic one. Equally saying someone has talent because what they do is appreciated by wider (or narrow/specialist) communities is an argument with its' own circular logic (talent is recognised as a consequence of great art, not before the art, and the logics of appreciation determine who has talent).

 

Then again, because of the philosophers I read I'm more inclined to believe the "art is creativity" argument

[graygo]

Here's my tuppenceworth -

 

Most of the "art" I have seen (not a great deal tbf) has done absolutely nothing for me.

 

Some of the worst examples are the Australian Aboriginal art which although has meaning and tells a story is absolute guff in my eyes. Can't believe the prices some of this stuff fetches.

 

To me a good painting is one that looks like a photograph.

 

Being able to replicate something you see onto a piece of paper and it to look the same is what does it for me.

 

I wish I did "get it" but it ain't going to happen.

 

Oh, and Tracey Emin ...... GTF!!

[Guest Just Came To Say Kello]

it's about organising inner thoughts and capturing interplay between self and external reality.

 

Oh please.

 

You pressed a button and a shutter captured some light on a CCD.

[The Mighty Thor]

Talent as an artist isn't something that can be taught or learned IMO.

Art to me is about talent and seeing people create things that 99.99% of other people on earth couldn't. Anyone can take a photo and all of the "keen eye" chat just doesn't wash with me.

Like I said, it's for people who like the idea of being artists but were unlucky enough to be born without the talent.

 

I agree.

 

This is a favourite abstract work of mine, created by an artist in her 30's who had to endure difficult conditions and an abusive partner.

 

 

Here's her story

 

Linky

[Guest Just Came To Say Kello]

I was right the first time, mods/admins.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Great photography can be art.

 

Just because anyone can pick up a guitar doesn't mean that great music can't be art. Just because anyone can paint doesn't mean that great painting can't be art. Just because anyone can take a photo with their phone doesn't mean that great photography isn't art.

 

Art is about interpreting the world in a unique and hopefully insightful way, for me. There are photographs that certainly do that.

[The Mighty Thor]

Great photography can be art.

 

Just because anyone can pick up a guitar doesn't mean that great music can't be art. Just because anyone can paint doesn't mean that great painting can't be art. Just because anyone can take a photo with their phone doesn't mean that great photography isn't art.

 

Art is about interpreting the world in a unique and hopefully insightful way, for me. There are photographs that certainly do that.

 

Huge collection of Razzle. Nap.

[Guest Just Came To Say Kello]

Great photography can be art.

 

Just because anyone can pick up a guitar doesn't mean that great music can't be art. Just because anyone can paint doesn't mean that great painting can't be art. Just because anyone can take a photo with their phone doesn't mean that great photography isn't art.

 

Flawed reasoning. It takes skill and practise to become great at painting or playing an instrument.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Huge collection of Razzle. Nap.

 

 

The over 50s section is very tasteful, Thor. I'd call it arty for sure.

[Kendorage]

Oh please.

 

You pressed a button and a shutter captured some light on a CCD.

 

To the same extent, a guitarist just hits some strings and produces vibrations which sets air molecules into motion. A painter just chucks a mixture of water and coloured liquid on some surface. But some people call both of these things art.

 

The line about interplay is just one philosophical interpretation (albeit an idealist one) of what art is. The appreciation of art (be it on a technical/definitional level of just pressing a button or throwing paint, or on an aesthetic level) is a separate issue and that's where stuff like Emin's work is divided as being great or shite, and it so happens that it's also where the talent argument is brought up.

 

Those who like something are more inclined to say the artist has talent. Those that don't are more inclined to say the artist is rubbish. Art isn't necessarily the expression of talent.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Flawed reasoning. It takes skill and practise to become great at painting or playing an instrument.

 

 

It is not flawed at all. To take a great photo also takes skill and practise, as well as talent.

 

You might not respect the skill, but just like some toerag picking up an acoustic guitar for the first time can't write God Only Knows, you cannae just pick up a Kodak disposable camera and take something like this:

 

[cosanostra]

It is not flawed at all. To take a great photo also takes skill and practise, as well as talent.

 

You might not respect the skill, but just like some toerag picking up an acoustic guitar for the first time can't write God Only Knows, you cannae just pick up a Kodak disposable camera and take something like this:

 

 

Right.

However, if I was on that truck feeding starving Africans and I had the same camera, I'd take a similar photograph as that.

That doesn't make me a photo-artist. It just makes me a guy with a camera.

Photography is just too easy to ever really impress me. When it does impress me, it's more the subject matter that impresses rather than the skill of the photographer.

Let's see you paint it and then we'll see how much of an artist you are.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Right.

However, if I was on that truck feeding starving Africans and I had the same camera, I'd take a similar photograph as that.

That doesn't make me a photo-artist. It just makes me a guy with a camera.

Photography is just too easy to ever really impress me. When it does impress me, it's more the subject matter that impresses rather than the skill of the photographer.

Let's see you paint it and then we'll see how much of an artist you are.

 

Similar is the key word there Cossa.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Right.

However, if I was on that truck feeding starving Africans and I had the same camera, I'd take a similar photograph as that.

That doesn't make me a photo-artist. It just makes me a guy with a camera.

Photography is just too easy to ever really impress me. When it does impress me, it's more the subject matter that impresses rather than the skill of the photographer.

Let's see you paint it and then we'll see how much of an artist you are.

 

 

Bet you wouldn't though.

[Guest Just Came To Say Kello]

To the same extent, a guitarist just hits some strings and produces vibrations which sets air molecules into motion. A painter just chucks a mixture of water and coloured liquid on some surface. But some people call both of these things art.

 

The line about interplay is just one philosophical interpretation (albeit an idealist one) of what art is. The appreciation of art (be it on a technical/definitional level of just pressing a button or throwing paint, or on an aesthetic level) is a separate issue and that's where stuff like Emin's work is divided as being great or shite, and it so happens that it's also where the talent argument is brought up.

 

Those who like something are more inclined to say the artist has talent. Those that don't are more inclined to say the artist is rubbish. Art isn't necessarily the expression of talent.

 

No - see, you're doing it again. The only reason these 'philosophical interpretations' exist is so untalented artists can mask their 'work' behind this veil of pseudo-intellectual, spurious credibility. Which other discipline encourages the deliberate convolution of the ideas/themes behind its work? I can only guess it's because deep down, most modern artists know that what they're doing is a sham. These interpretations give charlatan artists the chance to equivocate, basically.

 

Art isn't necessarily an expression of talent, yes. But if it's an expression of anything then that does require talent. Even allowing for personal tastes and the circular reasoning in your last sentence, most people can spot when a body of work expresses some idea, emotion, theme or just some aesthetic. Things like that don't just happen by accident and it does require talent, which is usually acknowledged and appreciated.

 

Art is labelled rubbish when someone with no talent essentially tries to pull the wool over someone's eyes. It's not because they don't like it or don't get it. It's because it's hollow. It represents nothing, it expresses nothing, least of all whatever the 'artist' is trying to tell you it expresses or represents. There's a lot of art I don't particularly like, but I certainly wouldn't say it's rubbish.

 

It is not flawed at all. To take a great photo also takes skill and practise, as well as talent.

 

You might not respect the skill, but just like some toerag picking up an acoustic guitar for the first time can't write God Only Knows, you cannae just pick up a Kodak disposable camera and take something like this:

 

 

Yes. Yes, you literally could.

[Gizmo]

 

 

Yes. Yes, you literally could.

 

Seriously? How are you going to get that depth of field and level of contrast (not to mention the lack of chromatic aberration) from a disposable?

[cosanostra]

Bet you wouldn't though.

 

Why not?

I draw and paint. I had an interview to attend Glasgow school of art but I turned a place down to do something else.

I'm into art.

I think with the same gear, what I would come out with would be almost the same. The kid wouldn't look any less hungry and frightened just because it was me holding the camera. I rate photography as a visual aid and it's great for telling a story, but to me, it's just not art. It's functional and it's a skill that can easily be learned by anyone.

 

I've got some mates who went out and spent hundreds on fancy cameras over the last few years and now they intermittently post photos of Scottish hillsides or the Clyde at night or Kelvingrove Park at sunrise on Facebook or Twitter or Flickr or whatever. They're cool images because they're of cool things that i've seen myself but it's not art. It's just a bunch of photographs.

[Governor Tarkin]

GreaGAnreat thread, kickback. Keep up the good work.

 

I can find a measure of my own opinions scattered amongst all of the alternate viewpoints expressed thus far. I suppose that's the nature of my relationship with 'art'.

 

P.S. Cosanostra (and a few others), photography definately can be an art. I agree that the game can be inhabited by a bunch of poncey ****-twats and that they are undoubtedly up their own arses in relation to the size of their talents (either god given or hard earned btw). But if a photograph has the power to move the beholder then that surely constitutes art.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I'd like to see one of Cosanostra's pictures since he reckons it's so easy.

 

I really doubt he could take a photo similar to what has been posted so far.

[Tommy Wiseau]

 

 

 

 

Yes. Yes, you literally could.

 

 

Could you ****.

 

You are having an absolute laugh if you think you could. No more than some jakeball with an acoustic and 4 chords could write Chimes Of Freedom or Like A Rolling Stone could a jakeball with a disposable take a Pulitzer or World Press winning photograph.

[cosanostra]

GreaGAnreat thread, kickback. Keep up the good work.

 

I can find a measure of my own opinions scattered amongst all of the alternate viewpoints expressed thus far. I suppose that's the nature of my relationship with 'art'.

 

P.S. Cosanostra (and a few others), photography definately can be an art. I agree that the game can be inhabited by a bunch of poncey ****-twats and that they are undoubtedly up their own arses in relation to the size of their talents (either god given or hard earned btw). But if a photograph has the power to move the beholder then that surely constitutes art.

 

Yeah, I get your point.

I just think art should be difficult and not so easily achievable.

I want the artists I respect to be able to do what I never could.

I just don't buy that with photography i'm afraid.

[cosanostra]

I'd like to see one of Cosanostra's pictures since he reckons it's so easy.

 

I really doubt he could take a photo similar to what has been posted so far.

 

I don't have any photographs or a camera for that matter.

I've no interest in photography in general as I don't rate it as an art form.

It's functional and useful but not art to me.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Isn't one intention of "art" to provoke thought and reaction.

 

I like Warhol's stuff, what i find amusing is that he painted a tin of soup and it is now 'iconic'. I might paint a jelly babies box and hope it becomes iconic.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Why not?

I draw and paint. I had an interview to attend Glasgow school of art but I turned a place down to do something else.

I'm into art.

I think with the same gear, what I would come out with would be almost the same. The kid wouldn't look any less hungry and frightened just because it was me holding the camera. I rate photography as a visual aid and it's great for telling a story, but to me, it's just not art. It's functional and it's a skill that can easily be learned by anyone.

 

I've got some mates who went out and spent hundreds on fancy cameras over the last few years and now they intermittently post photos of Scottish hillsides or the Clyde at night or Kelvingrove Park at sunrise on Facebook or Twitter or Flickr or whatever. They're cool images because they're of cool things that i've seen myself but it's not art. It's just a bunch of photographs.

 

 

Playing the piano is functional, it's a skill and can be learned by anyone. Don't see many folk wheeling out Moonlight Sonata.

 

The skill does not equal the art, in any medium. It simply supports it - the technique allows the artist to say what they want to say. If that sounds pretentious, then so be it, but it's true.