nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Modern Art: Love it or loathe it?

Del.Monte

What say you? There have been various threads on this subject down the years but nothing recently - I think.

Whose your favourite 'modern' Irish artist? Sean Scully, Kevin Sharkey, Michael Flatley, John Kingerlee, Jack B Yeats, Basil Blackshaw....?

Mealys%2B2012.jpeg

I picked up the above painting recently and wonder what others make of it? I can relate to it and I think that I understand what the artist is trying to say.

I'm off to Netflixland now so won't be available to fight with anybody until tomorrow.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Conor Bourke

[Deleted User] wrote: »

^^^Really..was there any need for that?
Cheap nostalgia is an easy sell..

If this is in reply to my post re: Bushy Park that’s a pretty reductive approach. Given the absolute state of the bandstand prior to this, anything that brings life and colour to such an underused and neglected facility should be lauded and to me the concept is creative and fun.

As long as it’s provoking thought and discussion, it’s achieved it’s aim as a piece of art which is more than the poor old bandstand did up to now

silverharp

when cleaners have been known to throw "art" exhibits in the bin you can be sure that a % of modern art simply isnt art.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

when cleaners have been known to throw "art" exhibits in the bin you can be sure that a % of modern art simply isnt art.

Says who? The cleaners? Not sure they'd be in authority here.

mikemac2

I queued 40 minutes to get into the Musee D´Orsay in Paris. Top tip, its free the first Sunday of each month

I saw some amazing stuff and I also saw this. A child in senior infants could have done it

I am a philistine I know but I refuse to appreciate something like that

McDermotX

Pretentious nonsense.

[Deleted User]

mikemac2 wrote: »

I queued 40 minutes to get into the Musee D´Orsay in Paris. Top tip, its free the first Sunday of each month

I saw some amazing stuff and I also saw this. A child in senior infants could have done it

I am a philistine I know but I refuse to appreciate something like that

That's a western take on an Enso circle..
Profound..
I like how the line is so thin.. very contemporary..

Canis Lupus

Look if it's not a nice landscape with maybe a cottage in it then it's not art in my eyes.

silverharp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Says who? The cleaners? Not sure they'd be in authority here.

here as one apparently. there is a bit of the emperor with no clothes about this nonsense, you have to be part of the in crowd to get it

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11956330/Art-installation-in-Italy-ended-up-in-the-bin-by-cleaners-who-thought-it-was-rubbish.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

FrancieBrady

Most people who don't understand the rules of cricket or what the goal of the game is find it boring, pointless and stupid.

Understanding what an artist is trying to do isn't a 'right', you have to put something into the contract too.

the beer revolu

McDermotX wrote: »

Pretentious nonsense.

It took longer than I expected for the "p" word to be used.

Muahahaha

Sheridan81 wrote: »

One thing I will confidently say: Tracy Emin has a nice set of knockers.

She might have nice norks but her 'art' I cannot stand. Like putting your bedroom on display in a gallery complete with dirty bedsheets, used condoms and tampons is not art.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a western take on an Enso circle..
Profound..
I like how the line is so thin.. very contemporary..

Contemporary ?

The definitive Western take on the freehand circle was by Giotto back in the 13th century.

It is no wonder therefore that Pope Benedict sent one of his courtiers into Tuscany to see what sort of a man he was and what his works were like, for the Pope was planning to have some paintings made in S Peter's.

This courtier, on his way to see Giotto and to find out what other masters of painting and mosaic there were in Florence, spoke with many masters in Sienna, and then, having received some drawings from them, he came to Florence.

And one morning going into the workshop of Giotto, who was at his labours, he showed him the mind of the Pope, and at last asked him to give him a little drawing to send to his Holiness. Giotto, who was a man of courteous manners, immediately took a sheet of paper, and with a pen dipped in red, fixing his arm firmly against his side to make a compass of it, with a turn of his hand he made a circle so perfect that it was a marvel to see it Having done it, he turned smiling to the courtier and said, "Here is the drawing."

But he, thinking he was being laughed at, asked, "Am I to have no other drawing than this?" "This is enough and too much," replied Giotto, "send it with the others and see if it will be understood." The messenger, seeing that he could get nothing else, departed ill pleased, not doubting that he had been made a fool of. However, sending the other drawings to the Pope with the names of those who had made them, he sent also Giotto's, relating how he had made the circle without moving his arm and without compasses, which when the Pope and many of his courtiers understood, they saw that Giotto must surpass greatly all the other painters of his time.

This thing being told, there arose from it a proverb which is still used about men of coarse clay, "You are rounder than the O of Giotto," which proverb is not only good because of the accasion from which it sprang, but also still more for its significance, which consists in its ambiguity, tondo, "round," meaning in Tuscany not only a perfect circle, but also slowness and heaviness of mind. So the Pope made him come to Rome, and he painted for him in S. Peter's, and there never left his hands work better finished; wherefore the Pope, esteeming himself well served, gave him six hundred ducats of gold, besides having shown him so many favours that it was spoken of through all Italy.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a western take on an Enso circle..
Profound..
I like how the line is so thin.. very contemporary..

Back in the day one of the biggest global suppliers of phone systems and WiFi technology used a red (cf. Giotto) Enso circle as their corporate logo.

For a techie like me this is like passing off a line drawing of a Coco Cola shaped bottle as "art"

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the day one of the biggest global suppliers of phone systems and WiFi technology used a red (cf. Giotto) Enso circle as their corporate logo.

For a techie like me this is like passing off a line drawing of a Coco Cola shaped bottle as "art"

Are you referring there to the photograph from the Musee d'Orsay above?

What are you expecting from art? Surely, much of postmodern art is intended more to offend or to provoke than to please and pacify. It's supposed to make you tut, or raise your eyebrows, just like Duchamp's pissotière (FOUNTAIN), where he exhibited a urinal as a piece of art. It annoys people as much as it amuses or impresses them, it raises all kinds of questions about art and the role of the artist in it.

https://www.villagevoice.com/2006/02/21/idol-thoughts/

JohnnyFlash

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the day one of the biggest global suppliers of phone systems and WiFi technology used a red (cf. Giotto) Enso circle as their corporate logo.

For a techie like me this is like passing off a line drawing of a Coco Cola shaped bottle as "art"

Are you trying to imply that being a ‘techie’ means you cannot have appreciation for art?

ILoveYourVibes

Some of it is very dishonest.

Most of it that you see in galleries or certainly in the Nat Modern Gallery in Ireland is quite good though.

I remember an art installation by Ilya and Emilia Kabakov my mother took me to see it when i was a child.

I was so moved by it i remember it to this day.

I actually have problems expressing what it made me feel.

It was called 'The Children's Hospital' or (Extraordinary Pirouettes).

They also made the Ship of tolerance.

It was a few rooms replicating a very old and basic USSR hospital for children it was very stark and depressing and very frightening. And when you walked in music played. And there by the beds there were little theaters. You pushed a button and the play began on little automated beautifully painted puppets. Then began the play depicting fables from ancient Greek fabulist Aesop.

Then as part of the written into to the installation they wrote an Essay of how children whose environments were positive in hospital seemed to do better and recover faster.

You understood everything perfectly.
Ilya and Emilia Kabakov showed you how scary a hospital can look. And how sad. And how the room was instantly changed forever in character by selection of the right stimulus of music and visual theater that was hand crafted. The tales in the little theaters were stimulating and were to make children think and debate with each other from their beds. At the same time the little paper puppets were cute and charming.

It felt very safe but only after the puppet shows and music started. It felt like a LIGHT opening up in a room of darkness when they started.

https://fineartbiblio.com/artworks/ilya-and-emilia-kabakov/2210/the-childrens-hospital

I totally understood even though I was only 6 or so.

ILoveYourVibes

Its hard to dream in the soviet union ..its hard to dream when you are sick in a scary place. So you have to dream harder!

Church on Tuesday

Del.Monte wrote: »

What say you? There have been various threads on this subject down the years but nothing recently - I think.

Whose your favourite 'modern' Irish artist? Sean Scully, Kevin Sharkey, Michael Flatley, John Kingerlee, Jack B Yeats, Basil Blackshaw....?

I picked up the above painting recently and wonder what others make of it? I can relate to it and I think that I understand what the artist is trying to say.

I'm off to Netflixland now so won't be available to fight with anybody until tomorrow.

Jim Fitzpatrick for me, not strictly modernist but influential all the same.

Le Broquy too.

If were're talking about abstract art, what make it interesting for me, is that the piece you are viewing is essentially what you want it to be or rather what context you want it to take on. In the OP's pic I see weathered human faces amongst the strong but subdued colours.

A lot of people want art and things in general to make sense. There is a sculpture near Ballindine on the N17 which I think is great; some people think it an eyesore and when I talk to them about it, my take is what makes it so great is that it is something so out of the ordinary on a fairly banal motorway to be almost surreal, there's no point to it because there doesn't have to be.

ILoveYourVibes

Strictly speaking the modern art era is over though. It was from the 1860s to the 1970s.

I would thoroughly recommend looking up the Kabakovs though they are Russian Jews born in soviet union Ukraine. They fled the USSR later.

They have had installations here in the Nat Gallery a few times.

[Deleted User]

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

If were're talking about abstract art, what make it interesting for me, is that the piece you are viewing is essentially what you want it to be or rather what context you want it to take on. In the OP's pic I see weathered human faces amongst the strong but subdued colours.

I don't see that at all. I see something to do with reproduction - an explosion of life. There's something vaguely menstrual about it. Motion, blood, energy/ exsplosion, and new life are all the things that I think about when I see that. Scientifically, the menstrual reference doesn't even make sense, since menstruation and conception are completely contradictory.

But contemporary art doesn't even try to refer to conventional explanation, anyway, so that's no matter. We all probably see something different in this,or maybe don't see anything just perceive a certain mood from it.

The predictable reply to that from people who prefer more orthodox, or classical art, might be 'well then anything could be art'. Yes, probably it could. Plenty of contemporary artists would subscribe to the idea that art should be something far less reverent and solemn, in fact quite ordinary, and perhaps the whole point of art should be to provoke constant inner reflection, like Patrick Kavanagh seeing the mysterious in the banal

This is what love does to things: the Rialto Bridge,
The main gate that was bent by a heavy lorry,
The seat at the back of a shed that was a suntrap.
Naming these things is the love-act and its pledge;
For we must record love's mystery without claptrap,
Snatch out of time the passionate transitory.

silverharp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most people who don't understand the rules of cricket or what the goal of the game is find it boring, pointless and stupid.

Understanding what an artist is trying to do isn't a 'right', you have to put something into the contract too.

if the artist demonstrates talent, i dont know the rules of cricket but i can observe the talent on display and respect it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

if the artist demonstrates talent, i dont know the rules of cricket but i can observe the talent on display and respect it

Talent in what respect, though?

The initial conception of the idea or the expression of it? The first is very difficult to see when you're already decided you don't like it, and at that point, the second is kind of immaterial.

Not understanding it is one thing, dismissing it without trying to understand it is ignorant.

ILoveYourVibes

The Ship of Tolerance. Ilya and Emilia Kabakov

They get children from different cities from different backgrounds to work together to build these giant installations that will actually go on the water.

Capt'n Midnight

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that being a ‘techie’ means you cannot have appreciation for art?

No quite, the contrary.

It does mean I have contempt for fakes, knock offs and rebadging and stuff cobbled together the night before, marketing etc.

Too much contemporary art falls under "You could have done it but you didn't"

I had resisted the temptation to post earlier but I guessed the age bracket of the bandstand artist by their use of the old RTE test card ( cf. Philips PM5544 ) from the days before 24 hour TV. Still viewable on Saorview and Saorsat channels if using non-Saorview approved equipment

It's not really inspiration if you've been continually exposed to it.

silverharp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Talent in what respect, though?

The initial conception of the idea or the expression of it? The first is very difficult to see when you're already decided you don't like it, and at that point, the second is kind of immaterial.

Not understanding it is one thing, dismissing it without trying to understand it is ignorant.

the execution should demonstrate talent , if a random adult or kid could replicate it then a basic filter should be to disregard it as pretentious w@nk

[Deleted User]

silverharp wrote: »

the execution should demonstrate talent , if a random adult or kid could replicate it then a basic filter should be to disregard it as pretentious w@nk

Some people are able to replicate drawings and paintings with remarkable precision.

If I can draw a Picasso as good as Picasso, does that mean I am his equal?

Of course not. Art isn't necessarily about draftsmanship; in most cases, art happens in the head, not simply in the creator's hands.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

the execution should demonstrate talent , if a random adult or kid could replicate it then a basic filter should be to disregard it as pretentious w@nk

Surely that would depend on the idea?

Earthhorse

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

In the OP's pic I see weathered human faces amongst the strong but subdued colours.

A lot of people want art and things in general to make sense. There is a sculpture near Ballindine on the N17 which I think is great; some people think it an eyesore and when I talk to them about it, my take is what makes it so great is that it is something so out of the ordinary on a fairly banal motorway to be almost surreal, there's no point to it because there doesn't have to be.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't see that at all. I see something to do with reproduction - an explosion of life. There's something vaguely menstrual about it. Motion, blood, energy/ exsplosion, and new life are all the things that I think about when I see that. Scientifically, the menstrual reference doesn't even make sense, since menstruation and conception are completely contradictory.

But contemporary art doesn't even try to refer to conventional explanation, anyway, so that's no matter. We all probably see something different in this,or maybe don't see anything just perceive a certain mood from it.

The predictable reply to that from people who prefer more orthodox, or classical art, might be 'well then anything could be art'. Yes, probably it could. Plenty of contemporary artists would subscribe to the idea that art should be something far less reverent and solemn, in fact quite ordinary, and perhaps the whole point of art should be to provoke constant inner reflection, like Patrick Kavanagh seeing the mysterious in the banal

And I don't see either of those things or even close to it. To me it's just mildly appealing aesthetically, nothing more.

And that's the problem with a lot of modern and contemporary art for me. It asks the viewer to fill in the gaps without necessarily giving you reason to. I think it appeals to people who are eager to do so and puts off people who are expecting the art to draw then in.

It's not that so many people want art to "make sense" so much as they want it to "have value". For instance, when I watched Mulholland Drive or Primer for the first time it would be a stretch to say they made sense to me. But there was so much there that I was willing to go back and find some semblance in them.

FrancieBrady

silverharp wrote: »

the execution should demonstrate talent , if a random adult or kid could replicate it then a basic filter should be to disregard it as pretentious w@nk

I have seen craftspeople who can replicate a photo so that you don't know the difference.

That would be a waste of talent rather than a demonstration of it.

If you are 'painting' something and your goal is a celebration of the scene and the joy of paint, then yes, you have to demonstrate that talent.

But it isn't always necessary depending on what you are doing, trying to convey.

Conor Bourke

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not really inspiration if you've been continually exposed to it.

If I’m continually exposed to a particular landscape for example the beautiful mountain ridge which runs behind my childhood home where I spent my first 20 years and it inspires me to paint a beautiful scene of it or model pottery/create jewellery/compose a song incorporating elements of it or what it means to me, is my art less valid or less inspired than someone else’s who sees it once and does the same? That strikes me as an entirely nonsensical statement.