Arts and Crafts

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:21 am

I take exception to this.

As far as art works go, it must have been one of the most exhausting to make.

For the past two years, Barnaby Barford has been cycling around London, taking photographs of London's shops. At times he cycled over 50 miles a day.

The photos were then made into small porcelain ornaments which have been built into a 20ft-high (6.5m) tower.

Barnaby Barford has built a tower from 3,000 porcelain shops - BBC News

Art works? In what way are these things art. The chap has a skill at a particular craft. What he's made has nothing to do with art at all. I have considerable respect for the skill involved, but I can think of no legitimate use of the word "art" which would cover his product. He is a craftsman, which is laudable, but that doesn't make him an artist.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:19 am

It's much more a matter of art that most of the things you see labelled as 'art', such as chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked. Great fun, but hardly the work of a 'talented artist', yet these sorts of works sell for a fortune.

I doubt many people would deny that the London "River of Poppies" (or whatever it was called) was a definite work of art, yet there was nowhere near the same level of expertise that went into the making of each of those poppies as went into each of those porcelein shops.

Putting the tower aside, personally I class each & every one of the porcelein miniatures as an individual work of art on its own merits. The concept of the tower - I'm not so sure about that, but with art it does seem to be that these days it is the concept rather than the talent that determines it, and this is undeniably a combination of concepts, combined with an obvious talent & very hard work.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:24 am

You could say the same about Damian Hurst and Tracey Emin's "Art".

The label Artist to some extent is interchangeable with Self Publicist these days.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:56 pm

FourPart;1485895 wrote: It's much more a matter of art that most of the things you see labelled as 'art', such as chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked.Do you know, the last time I did that was around 1969 and it was already getting overused. When on earth do you think anyone has done that since and called it art?

Great fun, but hardly the work of a 'talented artist', yet these sorts of works sell for a fortune.Could you point to a single instance? Because I certainly can't remember one.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:02 pm

Art / The Arts - Variations on a theme...

Edinburgh festival: naked performers throw paint to try to escape modern life | Stage | The Guardian

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:27 pm

FourPart;1485959 wrote: Art / The Arts - Variations on a theme...

Edinburgh festival: naked performers throw paint to try to escape modern life | Stage | The Guardian
And what on earth does that have to do with "yet these sorts of works sell for a fortune", which is what I queried.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:49 pm

spot;1485945 wrote: Do you know, the last time I did that was around 1969 and it was already getting overused. When on earth do you think anyone has done that since and called it art?

Could you point to a single instance? Because I certainly can't remember one.

I had a quick 'trawl', and I found this. It's not exactly worth a fortune, but I know what FourPart is saying. Definitely a loose description for 'art', IMO. Seems more like lubrication to me!

These Abstract Art Pieces Are Made By Having Sex

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:04 am

It fits the "what art tutors enjoy talking their students into" category, that's all. The idea that the result might ever be worth a fortune is ludicrous.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:11 am

Now I consider the following, art. Amazing stuff that I would love to have a shot at, but I always find that when I have tried it in the past, the sand dries too quickly and the 'sculpture' crumbles away ! :-1 I shall have to study the videos that demonstrate how to do it ! :yh_wink

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:28 am

Tate Modern anyone?

Karel Appel none the less, 'ART' is in the eye of the beholder.............................and the pocket of the buyer ?

Work Table ?

Robot ?

Black Cockfeathers ?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:36 am

What something is 'worth' financially is nothing more than what someone is willing to pay for it, and that 'value', more often than not is brought about by peer pressure. The same goes for the Wine Collectors - paying thousands for a bottle of wine that's never going to be opened, and even if it were, there's a good chance it would have gone off. It's the same with 'fashion' in the schoolyard. Jeans were originally intended as cheap working clothes. They are now often the most expensive type of clothing. When they got too many holes in them you would chuck them out, or use what material there was left to patch up others. Now you pay a fortune to have jeans that are already 'designer' torn.

What is considered as 'art' is nothing more than what the current 'long hairs' SAY is art. It bears no relevance to talent.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:45 am

I have to agree with you FourPart.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:00 am

FourPart;1486013 wrote: What something is 'worth' financially is nothing more than what someone is willing to pay for it, and that 'value', more often than not is brought about by peer pressure. The same goes for the Wine Collectors - paying thousands for a bottle of wine that's never going to be opened, and even if it were, there's a good chance it would have gone off. It's the same with 'fashion' in the schoolyard. Jeans were originally intended as cheap working clothes. They are now often the most expensive type of clothing. When they got too many holes in them you would chuck them out, or use what material there was left to patch up others. Now you pay a fortune to have jeans that are already 'designer' torn.

What is considered as 'art' is nothing more than what the current 'long hairs' SAY is art. It bears no relevance to talent.

It would be a fine notion if your basic premise was actually true. The issue is that "chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked" has never, not so much as once, absolutely not, sold "for a fortune". It has never happened. Your claim is bogus. The issue isn't what a swizz the art world is, it's that you make unsustainable claims which do not reflect reality.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:10 am

HERE you can 'Do it yourself'

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:52 am

I rather like Pollocks. There was an exhibition in the Hayward Gallery in the 80s which impressed me.

Their astronomical price has nothing to do with the cost of works created by "chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked", though. I doubt Jackson Pollock took his clothes off to have a bath, much less paint a canvas.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:07 am

spot;1486058 wrote: I rather like Pollocks. There was an exhibition in the Hayward Gallery in the 80s which impressed me.

But is it art ?

Or better, is it the work of a talented man ?

Or could it not be that a group of monkeys might furnish virtually the same result, long before a million of their cousins with typewriters came up with a novel ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:11 am

Bruv;1486063 wrote: But is it art ?

Or better, is it the work of a talented man ?

Or could it not be that a group of monkeys might furnish virtually the same result, long before a million of their cousins with typewriters came up with a novel ?

I'm not sure you've looked at it. Of course it's art. It's remarkably expressive. It's also abstract. Is that your problem? That if it's not representational it can't be art? I thought we'd got past that stage a hundred years ago.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:05 am

spot;1486065 wrote: I'm not sure you've looked at it. Of course it's art. It's remarkably expressive. It's also abstract. Is that your problem? That if it's not representational it can't be art? I thought we'd got past that stage a hundred years ago.

I have looked and I have enjoyed it. Have spent many happy hours in the Tate.................now what about my question ?

I remember walking into a room in the Tate and having my breath taken away by a depiction of an aerial view of a town, it was a surreal master piece.Further on I walked around what looked like a poorly painted dolls house, scratching my head as to why on earth it was there.

Remember the *cough* 'Installation' of the blooming house bricks arranged 10 by 4 and 2 high ?

HERE is another master piece for contemplation............somebody thought it worthy enough to display in the Tate.

Seriously ?

I was expected to go into art of some kind when I left school, my teachers couldn't understand why I didn't.

My reasoning then as now is that much of the art world is pretentiousness with nobs on, far too much angst and chin stroking, furrowed brows and explanation involved.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:39 am

I wouldn't dream of disputing what you say. Of course there's a lot of tosh out there, even at the Tate which should know better. I haven't at any stage said otherwise. Your observations still don't address the accuracy of Fourpart's claim - nobody's tried, either for or against.

Pollock didn't just dribble, you know. He obsessively filled in small sections with blocks of colour, changing the entire work.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 10:58 am

Pretentiousness......................personified.

Heather Hansen No paint involved though.

'Performance' Art........Lilibeth Cuenca Rasmussen Painting with her hair.......and bodies.

Vomit Art........yes Vomit

Body fluids in art......Mmm....nice.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:16 pm

Bruv;1486074 wrote: Pretentiousness......................personified.

Heather Hansen No paint involved though.

'Performance' Art........Lilibeth Cuenca Rasmussen Painting with her hair.......and bodies.

Vomit Art........yes Vomit

Body fluids in art......Mmm....nice.

Someone made some money from sculpting their own clotted blood and displaying crucifixes in what may have been urine, yes. Someone else crafted medical displays out of part-dissolved dead bodies and took the exhibition round the world. But none of this is a fortune from selling paint spread on canvas by rolling naked on a floor. Not that I think any of your examples qualify as fortunes, but that's incidental.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:25 pm

Would painting with naked feet and prices in excess of $300,000 qualify ?

Kazuo Shiraga

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:45 pm

Surely I've mentioned the Gutai Manifesto on ForumGarden before, and its approach to the use of materials? It's the framework Felicity and Laura worked within when they started painting - neither of them restricted herself to conventional camel-hair brushwork. Kazuo and the Declaration were key influences, the movement's approach post-war was one of the focal points of 20th century art. I'm pretty sure Felicity reprinted the core Gutai text in her first catalogue.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:08 am

spot;1486084 wrote: Surely I've mentioned the Gutai Manifesto on ForumGarden before, and its approach to the use of materials? It's the framework Felicity and Laura worked within when they started painting - neither of them restricted herself to conventional camel-hair brushwork. Kazuo and the Declaration were key influences, the movement's approach post-war was one of the focal points of 20th century art. I'm pretty sure Felicity reprinted the core Gutai text in her first catalogue.

Three observations........

You didn't answer the question.

You have gone all arty farty pretentious on me.

And finally.....maybe you should front The Peoples Party (Or whatever it's called) That was a professional Politicians reply......................well done.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:51 pm

Kira Ayn Varszegi - The Artist Who Paints with Her Breasts | Oddity Central - Collecting Oddities

And other of a similar ilk.

10 Incredibly Bizarre Painters and their Weird Techniques (weird artists, weird painting) - ODDEE

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:26 pm

FourPart;1486125 wrote: Kira Ayn Varszegi - The Artist Who Paints with Her Breasts | Oddity Central - Collecting Oddities

And other of a similar ilk.

10 Incredibly Bizarre Painters and their Weird Techniques (weird artists, weird painting) - ODDEE

But what makes you think she makes a fortune? It's the idea that "these sorts of works sell for a fortune", in the context of "such as chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked", that I find so incomprehensible, and your examples don't demonstrate your original claim at all as far as I can see. Do you think they do?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:46 pm

* Cough* Shiraga’s auction record was set in June when a large red painting from 1969 sold for $5.3 million at Sotheby’s in Paris........................Who Painted With His Feet

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:51 pm

spot;1486130 wrote: But what makes you think she makes a fortune? It's the idea that "these sorts of works sell for a fortune", in the context of "such as chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked", that I find so incomprehensible, and your examples don't demonstrate your original claim at all as far as I can see. Do you think they do?

You might think painting with her breasts is just silly, but Kira Ayn Varszegi is an established artist who sells most of her works on eBay, for a few hundred dollars, each. She claims she has sold paintings all around the world, and that there’s at least one of her artworks on a wall in each US state.
"Fortunes" are relative. Hundred of dollars for each painting I consider to be a fortune. However, I will concede that looking at her paintings, there does seem to be a certain level of talent as well.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:00 pm

Bruv;1486134 wrote: * Cough* Shiraga’s auction record was set in June when a large red painting from 1969 sold for $5.3 million at Sotheby’s in Paris........................Who Painted With His Feet

Yes, I did see it. I don't think the chap has anything to do with the events being discussed.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:02 pm

FourPart;1486136 wrote: "Fortunes" are relative. Hundred of dollars for each painting I consider to be a fortune. However, I will concede that looking at her paintings, there does seem to be a certain level of talent as well.
That's because she doesn't "chuck cans of paint on the ground, then roll in it naked".

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:52 am

spot;1486138 wrote: Yes, I did see it. I don't think the chap has anything to do with the events being discussed.

Is this passage the stumbling block ?

It's much more a matter of art that most of the things you see labelled as 'art', such as chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked. Great fun, but hardly the work of a 'talented artist', yet these sorts of works sell for a fortune.

If it is, then the critical part................to me..............is the "these sorts of works sell for a fortune"

Now we better decide what falls under "This sorts of works"

I believe Shiraga does.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:04 am

Fair enough. He used a hoist and flying harness to keep his body from having to support his weight, and used his foot movement on the paint. Between the mind and the painting stand the physical tools. Hands, brushes, feet, it's a means of achieving art.

None of that applied to the sixties return-to-the-nursery sensorial funtime that chucking cans of paint on the ground, then rolling in it naked recalled. I do not believe for a moment that anyone, anywhere, even once, sold the end result. It was playgroup activity time for twenty year olds.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:26 am

spot;1486167 wrote: Fair enough.

That'll do for me.

I just hope his harness maker got a cut of his money.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:31 am

Bruv;1486172 wrote: That'll do for me.

I just hope his harness maker got a cut of his money.

Not even he got a cut of the money, he was long dead before these capitalist investors stashed his work into vaults and started pumping up the price. Much like Van Gogh.