Now
G
1 Like
Mike, thanks for recommending the book. I looked it up and thought it looked familiar - it turns out my wife has it already. That’s another Christmas idea gone!
I think it makes people look rather foolish to simply dismiss this stuff. They may not understand it, or see the point of it, but that doesn’t make it a figure of fun.
One of the best exhibitions I’ve ever been to was when the Saachi Gallery was in County Hall on the South Bank. It had loads of the Emin, Hirst, Turk and co work, and was absolutely fascinating. On the other hand I can look at the Turners and Canalettos at Petworth and they do nothing for me. Would I dismiss Canaletto by saying that anyone with a very intricate paint by numbers set could knock one out? Of course not. But I get far more out of looking at a shark in a tank of formaldehyde. Maybe in some eyes that makes me ignorant or a fool, which is how people finding the banana interesting are being dismissed on here. But maybe it’s the dismissers who are being ignorant.
My other most memorable exhibition was the Late Rembrandt in London. Amazing and hugely moving pictures. He was modern in his day.
4 Likes
As an art lover I empathise very much with the question “…but is it art?”
‘Price’ and ‘Value’ I suspect are at the heart of this perennial debate however.
It’s fair enough I feel to tape a banana to a wall and call it ‘Art’. Is it worth six figures? Well it seems to depend who tapes it to which wall.
There are a few art programmes now which look at the value of art and among these is the one on BBC which tries to see if a painting has been attributed to the wrong artist.
Value, it seems, is largely dependant on who painted it. If it’s by artist A, then it’s worth X, however if it’s by artist B then it’s only worth X/1000 (although it can also be demonstrated that if it’s by ‘copyist’ C, then the value only fallls to X/800. It’s the same painting.
I’m hoping young Oscar Murillo wins the 2019 Turner prize…
Matthew Collings little series ‘This is Modern Art’ is worth dipping into for a broad critical view:
My son is doing his postgrad in ‘Modern and Contemporary Art, Culture, Curating & Criticism’ so we have quite some discussions on such questions from time to time.
The art ‘market’ has always been monetised and, more recently, cynical (which I was having a poke at).
Here’s my son and I admiring a Paul Furneax Japanese woodcut print (which I think beautiful) still on exhibition at this year’s RSA Annual - which I co-curated. Worth seeing if you are near Edinburgh.
G
5 Likes
HH, I consider the Banana on a wall to be pathetic. It does nothing for me and I consider the whole thing to be a con, a bit like the Emporer’s clothes.
But you (and others) like it. It moves you. It enriches you. It doesn’t make you a fool nor ignorant. We need to focus on our opinions about the “art” itself.
2 Likes
This Maurizio Cattelan has been doing a great job.
Although I do fear this bananaggedon is more a marketing stunt.
1 Like
So, what’s the precise point something becomes so simple it ceases to be art? Do need to throw away Venus In Furs? Chuck Berry? It seems a wholly false distinction to me.
1 Like
I’m not sure why you mention Chuck Berry in this contest. His music certainly isn’t ‘simple’.
There is of course no precise point. However, I still claim that the ‘Banana taped to wall’ and the ‘Blank Canvases’ have crossed the line and have absolutely no artistic merit. I also believe that my view would be shared by more than 95% of the public.
So - if I were to hang a toilet seat from the ceiling in the Tate Modern, would you consider it to have artistic merit - and if not then why not?
Or to move the concept of artistic merit to music - if I were to release an album in which every second track consisted of a single tone generated by a synthesiser and every other track contained absolutely nothing (just silence), would you consider that to be music with artistic merit? If not, then why not? Is it because it would be too simple, or just that it would patently be ludicrous to call it a work of merit?
There may be no precise point at which ‘art’ or ‘music’ simply ceases to have any merit, but at the extreme end of the spectrum in both art and music there can be still be close to unanimous consensus.
1 Like
Personal view. For art to interest me, it has to be thought provoking, but also technically well-executed. Difficult to do, if you will.
2 Likes
There can be but, as you’ve presumably already noted on this thread, there is absolutely no consensus. Thus my question about the line. The only line here is one you’ve arbitrarily drawn as an extreme but that’s just your view. Lines change. They blur. The need for people to impose such things is highly questionable.
I, and I suspect others, see said piece of art as actually very conservative.
There was a great line about Dylan in the 60s not operating on the border but actually being the border. Few would see that as valid now.
It strikes me that you’re taking an immensely simplistic and prescriptive approach to this.
-
art seems for you to have more value if there is more to look at.
-
you equate less content as less value.
-
you equate less content with less effort.
I’m not saying those are definitely wrong but they’re certainly not absolutes or absolutely right either.
I must confess huge amusement and delight at threads like this which start as attempts to accrue social capital by posting something upon which a consensus must surely coalesce. And then…
Lots of interesting debate here, some confused by what I personally define as conceptual art vs ‘modern’. My simple definition of the former is art that needs some degree of explanation, where the concept or idea behind the piece is the essence rather than pure aesthetics. It therefore requires a bit more work as a viewer. Sometimes I get it, often I don’t. The same is true about music though.
I think Winky’s comment about craft resonates with me. Simple is deceptively difficult. As evidence can I suggest people browse the sculpture of Constantin Brancusi (his piece Prometheus was my avatar for many years) and maybe also catch the retrospective of Bridget Riley at Southbank.
I discovered in the last decade or so that I have a real taste for mostly minimalistic or ‘simple’ modern art. Mondrian hits the spot generally as do Victor Pasmore, Patrick Caulfield, Bridget Riley and Derrick Greaves. Rothko sometimes. I love the organic and abstract sculptures of Brancusi, Moore, Hepworth and Frink. The parietal art of Ice Age man is inspirational and magnificent even independent of the historical context in my view. If your taste is more conventional try the technical genius of Euan Uglow.
On our bedroom wall is a large abstract original that my brother defines as ‘just a few lines’. He is a pretty concrete thinker! My wife and I have owned it for 15years and it genuinely still gives us new pleasures. I guess we ignore it for months and then suddenly it surprises and delights again. I won’t post an image because I really don’t care if anyone else likes it!
I try to be inquisitive about music that may not always be obviously my taste. I think if we can have the same approach to art then there are some wonderful discoveries to be made. You don’t have to like it all, and as with music, we appreciate it in a rich variety of ways. Thank goodness!
4 Likes
Agreed. We had the Rily at the RSA before our Annual and, seeing the whole body of work was indeed mesmerising.
G
Wouldn’t worry too much someone apparently ate it overnight. Dam expensive banana.
2 Likes
Yes - eaten by someone who describes himself as a ‘performance’ artist, and apparently the banana was delicious!
However, all is not lost. Apparently in this case it is legitimate to replace the original banana with a fresh one, so thankfully we haven’t lost an invaluable work of art.
3 Likes
Agreed - and I am guilty of this as well. I have no issue with either ‘conceptual’ or ‘minimalist modern’ art per se, even if some (but certainly not all) modern art might be a little minimalist for my own personal taste. We all have our boundaries or limits, and my own personal boundary has been well and truly crossed by the particular piece of work in question. More so by listening to an ‘art critic’ eulogise about the merits of the piece than by the piece itself.
I am still prepared to be persuaded by anyone who can point out to me the merits of this particular piece of work. The stock answer of - it promotes conversation or debate just won’t do it for me.
By the way, there were 3 purchasers of the work, and so I guess it can be considered to be the equivalent of a ‘very’ limited edition print.
Good art should encourage conversation, so job done.
Ah, but ‘bad’ art can equally encourage conversation, or perhaps I should say ‘meritless’ art.