[jcatherine]

Hi there,

New to this so bear with me!

Okay so I had yet another frustrating debate (drunken) with a friend about the importance of contemporary visual art. I was going around in circles and found myself just getting worked up and repeating myself (the latter more so from alcohol) but still I really struggled with getting my point across.

What I was trying to say is that I think what signifies contemporary art is engagement without a selling motive. I guess I'm not referring to the commercial end more so public collections -IMMA, National Gallery....funded organisations/galleries Temple Bar Gallery, Project Arts Centre, The Lab.....

But I now wonder is that enough?One could simply observe nature to experience pure engagement. Also this justification is too dependent on engaging in art not being consumerist. What art isn't doesn't define what it is.

You could say visual art articulates ideas and theories derived from scientific, philosophical or empirical research that has been visually realised by a fellow human.This can bring an extremely unique experience no matter what the medium and where the ideas have come from. It only works if the viewer is willing to stay with a piece to allow his/her own interpretations collaborate with the work and allow what is presented in front of/around him/her conceptually unravel.

Do people do this? I do, but can find it challenging or I'm not always in the mood....
I guess I'm curious to hear how people feel about visual art. I have a degree in visual art practice and yonks of experience working for galleries.I'm also about to start an MA in art theory. Over the years I still haven't got over the fact that it is not that popular a medium and I guess I get disheartened!

I find the art world extremely pretentious sometimes but I also really enjoy conceptual art or 'challenging' art.

Let me know you thoughts!

[ThOnda]

The problem I am finding is that you can proclaim that anything you've done is art. And the quantities of pretentious, self-centered egoistic producers of "something" put me off on regular basis from consuming more of that. And I mean actively looking up for exhibitions (web pages) and seeing art, modern art.
I am being told that the concept is essential for every work and I do understand it in quite a few works, but sometimes I don't know, if the context behind the work was good (strong?) enough, or the second context of producing something to exhibit and boost the artist's ego was stronger than the whole work.
Art and modern art wouldn't be able to exist without technologies. However displaying technology, procedure or algorithm cannot be enough to justify an exhibition. It is the work exhibited, in relevant context or with strong concept.
Fortunately, art is very subjective, so I don't feel ashamed when I laugh a bit when I see something, well, of kindergarden qualities in a gallery. And if the concept is "coming back to my childhood roots", it ain't exhibition for me. Similar with displaying blank canvas, stared at for hundreds of hours by the author. Funny idea, but exhibition piece worth auctioning? I don't think so.
However, I have to admit that I don't have any artistic education and I am coming to visual arts with very technical background. Maybe a bit too materialistic, maybe a bit too logical, I don't know. Just don't try to piss on my shoulders, please. There is art and there is pisstake.
But what was the question? Oh yes, if modern art is relevant and necessary. It is relevant, as every other visual input the brain processes. But, that doesn't mean that it has to be pushed as modern art (or art at all).

[Dolbert]

I hear you OP. I'm working in the field myself and always find myself amazed at the sheer hostility aimed at contemporary art. You don't like it - fine. You don't understand it - grand. You don't consider it 'real' art - you're entitled to your opinion. But I am mystified by the people that are completely enraged by contemporary art (and are actually abusive to staff about it on occasion).

My favourites are the comments along the lines of :'I loved everything in the gallery, except X artist. Get rid of him please.'

Yes sir, right away sir

[Chorcai]

I think one of the main problems is how Art and Art History is taught in schools, I picked up a leaving cert Art history book (Appreciation and History of Art - Aidan O'Sullivan) last year and sure enough it was the same stuff I was thought (15yrs ago!). Starts with the Medieval > Renaissance > 17th & 18th Century > Impressionism, this take up roughly about 150 pages, Post-Impressionism through to Neo-Expressionism all of which takes up 50 pages. Then another 150 pages of Irish Art namely Celtic, churchs, book of Kells, Jack Yeats etc.

It used 9 lines to outline Post-Modernism, bypasses Conceptualism (Art + Text, Body Art, Happenings etc), 2 lines are given to Duchamp, but it didn't state directly why or what he did mearly lumped him into DaDa, "a group who poked fun at art and exhibited found objects", picture above the text was Fountain.

I think at this stage the whole Art history secondary level course should be revised. Contempory art doesn't even get a mention, let alone Conceptualism. Don't even get me started on the practical exam/ project. I could go on, but over all kids are leaving secondary schools with no interest in going to contempory exhibitions let alone any exhibitions!

Proformance/ Group + Participatory work/ Video/ Digital/ Installation ?
It's a shame really that Art has moved so far beyond what is being taught in Irish schools, wouldn't it be great, if for your leaving cert you could produce a video or an installation or what ever medium you wanted at the end of your year.

[phonchoman]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/NeXus-...75312585855770

http://www.nexusarts.eu/public/


art for arts sake.

[FizzleSticks]

I could feel a bit down about it if I thought about how most people I meet don't value or respect the area I studied in but that doesn't take away from its actual value just because it isn't popular. I do a lot of unpopular charity work and like art the media, most people I know etc. don't see the value in what I do with that either.

And even within the Arts there would be a lot of people who don't value or respect what I do because its not like the art in the trendy galleries in town or "it has been done before" :rollseyes:. It's very easy for things like this to hit a nerve because art is something so close to your heart but you just have to decide for yourself how you feel about it and try not to let other people make you feel like you're wasting your energy. Just keep your head down and focus on the MA, being an artist is difficult because of the factors you mentioned in your post but not being able for financial reasons to not want to do art after studying it hurts a lot more than just sticking with it and putting up with all the rest. Basically the relevance of contemporary art in society is one thing and sure you could write about it but when it comes down to chats in the pub its best to just avoid it.

[thomasclark77]

I totally agree with ThOnda that everything you are doing is not an art but I want to say that everything you are doing with some concept in it that is art, that is very challenging for the artist, to express his feeling through the art and his art is really expressed it or not?

[thomasclark77]

I am totally agree with ThOnda that everything you are doing is not an art but I want to say that everything you are doing with some concept in it that is art, that is very challenging for the artist, to express his feeling through the art and his art is really expressed it or not?

[Oblomov]

Start with the simplistic view, the ability to learn and your own life experinces before critigue of any work

The most pretenous comment, " I don't like it" but when asked to explain........

Thinking you can walk round any gallery and understand all the exhibits. .

Sorry, not going to happen.

As Shakespeare wrote, " to thine own self be true"



John Berger's "A way of seeing"

http://www.amazon.ca/About-Looking-J...ref=pd_sim_b_1

[ThOnda]

Or what Barthes said - It is wrong, because it is not what I think
Shouldn't the word contemporary mean only that it is recent, recently created?
Fair amount of art or artists get recognised only after the test of time, or after good marketing. Therefore it has to be much harder to understand or praise some work or creator, not having the comfortable background filter of passed years. How to decide, if it is art, craft, kitsch or crap? Who has the authority? Or should own personal judging apply? Or could you judge only if you can explain why you have such opinion? Tough question, not suitable for my technical mind.
Art is always relevant. It reflects the state of society, technologies, world and the environment in general. And could also have influence on the world (e.g. Picasso's Guernica).

[Oblomov]

The age old argumanet as to what constitutes art.

" contemporary" , ... or as you rightly say, marketing, the curent example is Tracey Emin, excellent self publicist but...... LOL. back to the argument, is it art?

Barthes, ... Mythologies...... modern cultural phenomena, will today's "art" maintain its place witht the test of time?