Lots of people give me things that they think may be of interest to me, especially if it's to do with art, and this morning was no exception, as I was given a pamphlet about an art exhibition for a group of artists. I'm always interested to read about other exhibitions, even though I rarely buy art (because I'm in the business of selling it!) and I flicked through it with half interested attention until I read one of the phrases in it and instantly went into *rant* mode! WHAT THE FUCK????!!!! ..........(Told you I wouldn't be able to tell you without swearing!!!) - Well, I'll tell you what it was and you tell me what you think, cos I know what I think about it!!! The pamphlet was about the exhibition and gave a few brief details about the artists exhibiting then said:
"Placed in the company of the others, each body of work affects the viewing experience of the next, while retroactively changing the memory of the preceding one"
Yeh? Well, what a surprise! Of course it does! Anything would! That's how the brain works!!!! WHATEVER you look at affects what you next look at and is affected by what you JUST looked at - whether its baked beans on a supermarket shelf, guys in a bar, flowers in the desert, clouds in the sky or questions in an exam. But to use this as a selling phrase for an exhibition of paintings seems to be stating the bleeding obvious to me (you see, I'm swearing again!). Of course viewing one painting will affect the viewing experience of the next, that's what images DO, no matter WHAT the image is of. We all do it, all day, all the time!
This rant and my thoughts on it has reminded me of two separate conversations I had over the weekend, one late at night in the pub and one with other artists (and not the erotic lot I was with on Sunday) and it seems to me that I just don't understand the bollocks (you see, more swearing!!) that surrounds modern art. Why does a piece of artwork need to be explained? Why does it have to have "intellectual" artyspeak to describe it? Why can't it stand up on its own with out having to be propped up by fancy words? It seems quite easy to me, if its a piece of art it should be self explanatory. And it can evoke emotions in others one way or another (and it doesn't always have to be in a positive way) and it should speak to the viewer, and the viewer should be able to tell that some sort of artistic talent has gone into painting it (not that a child of three, an elephant, or someone just out to rip off other people, has produced it). I don't mind looking at a painting of a blue box on a red background so long as I feel that that image is created by an artist. I don't like every realistically painted painting I see, I don't like every old masterpiece I see, and I love some modern art, but I want to feel that I LIKE the painting because I can relate to it, not because someone has TOLD me its good. We're back to the "Emperors new clothes" aspect of art again. Its the only way I can describe it! (Whoops, I almost swore again!!!!).
Right, I'm off to paint a picture, and something that's NOT white spots on a white background!!!!!
And if you want to you can tell me how the painting on the left "speaks" to you, and what deep emotions it evokes. And after that I'll tell you that its part of the painting on the right, and I bet you get a different emotion from THAT one!!!
+(2).jpg)
.jpg)
18 comments:
*passes valium with a glass of wine*
Vi - Lol - Yes, I probably need it! Thanks hun! I know I get wound up and passionate on this subject!!!
Jackie, you ranted with restraint. Something I couldn't do. I can't understand the appeal of some modern art nor the inspiration (drugs? brain trauma? making others look foolish?) behind it. Why is a piece of rope nailed to a wall considered art?
I also think that some artists and art collectors/critics want others to feel inferior or stupid because we can't see the talent, emotion, and/or story behind a white spot on a black canvas. After years of art training and art history, I still don't "get" Jackson Pollock.
As you can tell, I'm also passionate on this topic. Throw some pills and wine over here, please!
Niteybyrd - Thank goodness its not just me! I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets all worked up and passionate on this topic!
I like feisty Jackie.
Luka - You've not met me in real life yet have you, Luka!? Feisty eh? Yep, that's me! :)
Ya can't beat a bit of feist!! And in my line of work, the more feist the better, Go Jackie..Go Jackie..Go Jackie..yey!!Lol.
Indigo - Ha ha! Thanks!! :)
I got on the soapbox and forgot to say, I love the tiger!
Nitebyrd - Well thankyou for coming back to tell me!
Is that a newly painted tiger I see before me?
Wow.. that tiger has such passion, a lover of old masters may say that the tiger doesn't give a great detail on the original tiger, ie. it doesn't look photographically like a tiger.
If you have just painted that tiger, I think you certainly passed on some of your "rant" into it, and a great painting has come out of it.
Of course, this makes me wonder, if you were put into an erotic mood before painting an erotic picture, would you internal eroticism be reflected into the painting?
The question being how do you put someone into an erotic mood? (That's something that definitely you shouldn't answer on a blog! a. it changes over time, b. it's very deep c. if you reveal it does it cease to be erotic to you ? )
Willsibob - Actually it's a tiger I painted a while ago. Its called "Spitting mad" which I thought summed it up well enough! I'm glad it has passion in the painting although I tend to be in a good and easy going mood when I paint, so no, my rant didn't go into it!
Now, to answer your more personal question! - yes, I suppose my internal eroticism would show in an erotic painting BUT I need to focus on the painting itself and use a different part of my brain for painting and that needs to be sharply focused to produce a decent piece of artwork. If I was thinking of something else (my own erotic state for example) I wouldn't be thinking of the artwork so deeeply! I've said this before, but it's an odd thing that I don't feel erotic whilst I'm painting erotic art BUT I have to make the viewer of my erotic art feel erotic! A strange anomoly!!!
And as for your question about how do you put someone in an erotic mood, its all down to chemistry, if it works, it works, if it doesn't, it doesn't. If it worked last time, if may not this, and if I'm not in the mood, then nothing will work!!!
As ever, Willsibob, you've given me a lot to think about! Thankyou for your constructive comments and ongoing interest in my art!
My interest in art really started when I was 10 years old and first saw a painting which my uncle had recently bought. It had been painted by a friend of his who was paralysed. Any art critc would hate it - but I was captivated by it from the start.
When my uncle died, I was given the picture and I would never sell it ( even though I have been offered rather a large amount of money for it! ).
I can appreciate talent and technique, but if I like something I don't give a stuff about what anyone else may think.
And I'll add chocolate to the wine and valium!!
The painting on the left is the face of the tiger on the right, if you look closely at the left picture, to the lower part of the face just below the jaw line, this speaks volumes, my kind of picture, pussies.
Racy Redhead - That's what art should be - that you are captivated with it from the start and no one elses opinion matters much to detract from that captivation!
Having said that it helps if someone can apprecaite talent and technique because they will (in theory!) make good paintings (and talent is something you're born with, technique is something you learn).
As for the chocolate, that'll calm me down any day!!!!
Indigo - Quite right, the picture on the left is part of the tigers jaw but on its own it looks like a piece of modern art. As far as I'm concerned there's far more passion, talent, technique, and interest in the painting of the tiger than the one purporting to be modern art on the left.
logically
Anonymous - Precisely!
Post a Comment