The silly prices fetched at the Damien Hurst auction proves that the art world has really taken off in a hot air balloon of lunacy. It seems to be creeping a bit into the woodworking world a little. Look in any woodturning mag and you can see endless daft, arty offerings that have not practical or aesthetic merit whatsoever.
Absurd art world
- Thread starter user 5053
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
maltrout512
Established Member
I,m with you there. More money than sense by the looks of it. They say there's one in every town. May be breeding, now where have I left my paint brush :^o :lol: :lol: :lol:
misterfish
Established Member
maltrout512":3392tx77 said:
You don't need a paint brush if you're following the Damian Hurst route. All you need is the idea/concept and then employ 'technicians' to carry out the skillful work for you! :roll: You then sell 'your' masterpiece for millions!
Misterfish
NickWelford
So many tools, so little to show
I see no merit in it at all - I know that art is in the eye of the beholder, but it just doesn't seem like art to me - more like a big con. Emperor's new clothes springs to mind.
A lot of today's artists don't have any intrinsic art skills. They go to art school where they are encouraged to plagiarise the works of others and twist them into their own derived works. These schools don't require you to have artistic ability; in fact, talent is quite a handicap. It's all very well producing modern art but many of these artists haven't mastered the fundamentals of art technique. No matter what you may think of Picasso, Dali, Modigliano and the rest, at least they could draw and paint to a very high standard in the traditional style.
I've no idea if Damien Hirst, Tracy Emmin or any of the current crop of art world favourites can say the same. I'd love to find out, though. Until then, I'll be with Nick pointing out that the emperor's in the altogether.
Gill
I've no idea if Damien Hirst, Tracy Emmin or any of the current crop of art world favourites can say the same. I'd love to find out, though. Until then, I'll be with Nick pointing out that the emperor's in the altogether.
Gill
StevieB
Established Member
Very happy to agree that its a pretentious load of old twaddle, to put it politely! However since none of us are ever likely to be able to afford several million quid for a decomposing carcass in a glass case or a light switch that doesn't work I don't have a major problem with it - artists are far from the only talentless individuals making alot of money for doing not alot of work. Perhaps the art world is just around the corner from a Lehman Brothers style collapse? (We can only hope :wink: )
Most of it is bought as an investment rather than for its intrinsic artistic merit, which to my mind makes the art world very much like pyramid selling - fine while you can find a buyer with more money than sense but you don't want to be left at the sharp pointy end with nobody above you.
Other examples of the same category include fine wine (supposedly, nobody drinks it they just store it in a cellar - how do they know its fine?!), fine antiques (just because something is old doesn't naturally make it expensive, nor does the fact its a one of a kind) and property (worth far far more than the intrinsic cost of the building materials used to make it, priced by location and the depth of somebody elses pockets). Money to be made for nothing from all of these if you have the investment capital in the first place. £5 million for a flat in the middle of London - definate case of style over substance I think!
We all buy into this phenomenon even if only in a small way of wanting to sell our house for more than we paid for it, the scale is just slightly different. An item is worth what someone will pay at the end of the day - with art it just seems that people will pay alot rather than face the fact that indeed the emperor is in the nuddy and they have been conned as to the finery of the cloth.
I think there is a special circle of **** reserved for Tracy Emin though, she really does annoy me both as an artist and a person!
Steve.
Most of it is bought as an investment rather than for its intrinsic artistic merit, which to my mind makes the art world very much like pyramid selling - fine while you can find a buyer with more money than sense but you don't want to be left at the sharp pointy end with nobody above you.
Other examples of the same category include fine wine (supposedly, nobody drinks it they just store it in a cellar - how do they know its fine?!), fine antiques (just because something is old doesn't naturally make it expensive, nor does the fact its a one of a kind) and property (worth far far more than the intrinsic cost of the building materials used to make it, priced by location and the depth of somebody elses pockets). Money to be made for nothing from all of these if you have the investment capital in the first place. £5 million for a flat in the middle of London - definate case of style over substance I think!
We all buy into this phenomenon even if only in a small way of wanting to sell our house for more than we paid for it, the scale is just slightly different. An item is worth what someone will pay at the end of the day - with art it just seems that people will pay alot rather than face the fact that indeed the emperor is in the nuddy and they have been conned as to the finery of the cloth.
I think there is a special circle of **** reserved for Tracy Emin though, she really does annoy me both as an artist and a person!
Steve.
A
Anonymous
Guest
As an art historian, I have little interest in Hirst's work (it simply isn't my cup of tea), but I do have to take my hat off to any artist who can fool rich art collectors (label freaks) into parting with huge sums of money for otherwise 'worthless', & often meaningless, objects.
Fool's & their money are easily parted :lol:
With regards to StevieB's question about Lehman & artsworld collapse: Artworks such as the Greats (Picasso etc.) hold their value in a similar way to gold (ie it's safe), however smaller, & certainly more contemporary artists may find their works devalued by the current economic crisis.
I think, that collectors of Hirst's work, & even moreso, Emin will be in for a shock, when this current crisis is over. Their works do seem to be priced a little on the high side for artists who are still so young. Their contribution to the annals of art history is still to be decided, but they will be judged, & I guess that they will be virtually forgotten within the next 50 years. The interesting thing from a historian's perspective, is in how Hirst bypassed the dealer/agent system to pocket every penny for himself, without losing sales money to the agent's in the form of commission charges.
As far as Gill's comment on art student's not having mastered their techniques etc. -You are correct ito a degree, for example: I found that many of the fine artists whom I knew at college, had no understanding of the theories or techniques of even their favourite artists. Worst of all they seemed to be encouraged to do as they pleased, & pass anything off as "good" art, so long as they could blag the examiners into believing their 'theory'.
Fool's & their money are easily parted :lol:
With regards to StevieB's question about Lehman & artsworld collapse: Artworks such as the Greats (Picasso etc.) hold their value in a similar way to gold (ie it's safe), however smaller, & certainly more contemporary artists may find their works devalued by the current economic crisis.
I think, that collectors of Hirst's work, & even moreso, Emin will be in for a shock, when this current crisis is over. Their works do seem to be priced a little on the high side for artists who are still so young. Their contribution to the annals of art history is still to be decided, but they will be judged, & I guess that they will be virtually forgotten within the next 50 years. The interesting thing from a historian's perspective, is in how Hirst bypassed the dealer/agent system to pocket every penny for himself, without losing sales money to the agent's in the form of commission charges.
As far as Gill's comment on art student's not having mastered their techniques etc. -You are correct ito a degree, for example: I found that many of the fine artists whom I knew at college, had no understanding of the theories or techniques of even their favourite artists. Worst of all they seemed to be encouraged to do as they pleased, & pass anything off as "good" art, so long as they could blag the examiners into believing their 'theory'.
punkrockdad
Established Member
What a bunch of unimaginative, miserable, negative skeptics! :roll:
StevieB
Established Member
Thanks for the reasoned argument and explanation punkrockdad :wink:
Shakey, I think most of us (I certainly was) referring to 'modern art' rather than pictures by the 'masters'. I use the term modern art to loosley define an object which any competent person could produce without the need to spend 3 years at art school. Typical examples would be a pile of bricks or an unmade bed. Look at the entries for this years Turner - a mannequin on a toilet?! What did the artist do for the rest of the day after coming up with that one? I am afraid, rightly or wrongly, I just do not buy into the existential anxst and hidden meanings in such pieces - to me its just the work of 5 minutes to slap a dummy on a porcelain pedestal. I would define 'fine art' as something that stands out from the norm in terms of its excellence, something the average person couldn't hope to achieve. Try a I might and given all the time I needed I still couldn't produce the Mona Lisa, Monet's waterlillies or Gainsborough's Blue Boy. I might not want the picture hanging on my wall, personally I am not enamoured with the Mona Lisa for example and Picasso's Gurnica is revolting, but I can recognise and respect the skill that went into producing it.
Still, to equate it to woodworking, if anyone wants to give me a million pounds for 6 bits of ply nailed into the shape of a box because it reflects the meaning of life and mans eternal struggle to create structure out of chaos I guess I wouldn't turn them down
Heck I would be laughing all the way to the bank, if there are any left by the time I got the cash there!
Steve.
Shakey, I think most of us (I certainly was) referring to 'modern art' rather than pictures by the 'masters'. I use the term modern art to loosley define an object which any competent person could produce without the need to spend 3 years at art school. Typical examples would be a pile of bricks or an unmade bed. Look at the entries for this years Turner - a mannequin on a toilet?! What did the artist do for the rest of the day after coming up with that one? I am afraid, rightly or wrongly, I just do not buy into the existential anxst and hidden meanings in such pieces - to me its just the work of 5 minutes to slap a dummy on a porcelain pedestal. I would define 'fine art' as something that stands out from the norm in terms of its excellence, something the average person couldn't hope to achieve. Try a I might and given all the time I needed I still couldn't produce the Mona Lisa, Monet's waterlillies or Gainsborough's Blue Boy. I might not want the picture hanging on my wall, personally I am not enamoured with the Mona Lisa for example and Picasso's Gurnica is revolting, but I can recognise and respect the skill that went into producing it.
Still, to equate it to woodworking, if anyone wants to give me a million pounds for 6 bits of ply nailed into the shape of a box because it reflects the meaning of life and mans eternal struggle to create structure out of chaos I guess I wouldn't turn them down
Heck I would be laughing all the way to the bank, if there are any left by the time I got the cash there!Steve.
punkrockdad
Established Member
I dont think I could get anymore pointed and reasoned than my statement. Have you read the thread?!!
I think you are confusing craftsmanship with ideas and money with 'good'. I'm sure they combine somewhere in the correct proportions to push your buttons, but not in the tabloid manipulated vision of contemporary art.
I think you are confusing craftsmanship with ideas and money with 'good'. I'm sure they combine somewhere in the correct proportions to push your buttons, but not in the tabloid manipulated vision of contemporary art.
Paul Hardy
Member
Selling through an auction house doesn't let you escape commission charges. Normally both the buyer and seller are charged commission. S******'s, for example, charge 25% to the buyer for lesser items, and between 5% - 15% to the seller. Hirst has just exchanged one intermediary for another.Shakey":3gnmuk8o said:
Paul Hardy
punkrockdad
Established Member
mmm, Nelsons body pickled in alcohol? Now theres something I'd like to see and not too disimilar to some of Hursts earlier works at least procedurally. Would I pay for the privilege? Would I like to buy it and how much is it worth? I've no idea but I'd say as far as supply and demand is concerned I bet theres a few Russian 'Nu' Oligarchs or Arabian Princes with a couple of billion burning a hole in their pocket that would get a few cocktails out when they took delivery of that one...
Reading back over that previous ramble it seems its all about 'ownership' and 'purchase'. I'm not sure I want to pursue this one, it'll all get very depressing very quickly.
Reading back over that previous ramble it seems its all about 'ownership' and 'purchase'. I'm not sure I want to pursue this one, it'll all get very depressing very quickly.
Paul Hardy
Member
punkrockdad":3k9b8eoy said:
It was only preserved in alcohol to get it home. He was entombed in St Paul's Cathedral on 21st October 1805. http://www.twogreens.co.uk/wakeup/nelson/body_back.htm
punkrockdad
Established Member
I wonder if it was a mdf veneered lead lined coffin?
punkrockdad
Established Member
Precisely my point cos it hardly makes it art! If it does then I fail to understand why I must 'appreciate' it any more than I do do Mein Kampf.
According to guides at St Paul's Nelson's body is sill immersed in alcohol.
Roy.
punkrockdad
Established Member
I'm not sure if you can pick events / things at random and call them art as the intention to create art wasnt there in the first place. Unless we have inadvertently created a new genre of 'accidental and uninformed' Art.
I can see the tabloids now, 'Crusty Old Woodworkers Create New Art Movement'...
I can see the tabloids now, 'Crusty Old Woodworkers Create New Art Movement'...
Shultzy
Established Member
Here's my take on this subject.
ART is the IDEA.
CRAFTSMANSHIP is required to turn the IDEA into something physical, whether its a painting, a bronze statue or a cow in formaldehyde. I suspect most modern art is not constructed by the artist.
BTW I remember a guy in Walsall submitted the mdf he used as a sacrificial board to an art competition - he won first prize :? .
ART is the IDEA.
CRAFTSMANSHIP is required to turn the IDEA into something physical, whether its a painting, a bronze statue or a cow in formaldehyde. I suspect most modern art is not constructed by the artist.
BTW I remember a guy in Walsall submitted the mdf he used as a sacrificial board to an art competition - he won first prize :? .
