|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 13:08:24 GMT
Why hasn't most high art passed the test of time then? Most of it means fuck all to most people. A Michelangelo here and a Beethoven there, but scant few. Which is probably what we have now. And if you're aware of the works of Michelangelo, but prefer Henry Moore, are you being thick, being wrong? If it's not past the test of time why do hundreds of thousands of tourists each year visit Florence or Paris to view this stuff? Why am I visiting Rome again and paying just to see the Pieta and the Sistine chapel hundreds of years after they were completed? Why is some fella from Beijing doing the same thing? It's odd that on one hand you make a virtue of praising music that few of us even listen to let alone the public yet you use popularity here as some kind of measure when appraising high art and find it wanting as a consequence. You can prefer who you want and it doesn't make you thick of course. I have mates who I'm going to Rome with who have no interest in this stuff at all and they are certainly not thick but not everyone has taste.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 13:09:04 GMT
I think Dougie's reading of Banksy is entirely wrong, too. He made his name via mass media picking up on his work, he wasn't initially part of the modern art scene except when he himself put his own paintings on display in galleries. He's well removed from the vast majority of the Saatchi-set of modern art. He was, but no longer. He now sells his work in the biggest and most prestigious auction houses for considerable sums.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 13:12:26 GMT
It's a complete waste of time, this whole discussion. Not that it stops us having it every few months! It's not a waste of time. Just because we'll never find a consensus doesn't mean it's not interesting in itself. You aren't helping
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 13:14:33 GMT
We seek, in ever greater numbers, things of beauty because they no longer exist in our culture.
Can you imagine living in 17th century Rome, infested with plague, rats and poverty, and being able to go to St Peters for Mass every Sunday?
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 13:15:09 GMT
It's not a waste of time. Just because we'll never find a consensus doesn't mean it's not interesting in itself. You aren't helping Why? What have I said?
|
|
|
Post by Half Machine Lipschitz on Aug 18, 2023 13:17:19 GMT
I think Dougie's reading of Banksy is entirely wrong, too. He made his name via mass media picking up on his work, he wasn't initially part of the modern art scene except when he himself put his own paintings on display in galleries. He's well removed from the vast majority of the Saatchi-set of modern art. He was, but no longer. He now sells His work now sells in the biggest and most prestigious auction houses for considerable sums. Fixed it for you. Artists don't consign their own work for auction, unless it's for charity. It's the collectors who've consigned his work and driven up the value.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 13:18:20 GMT
Oh sorry, I thought I was quoting JC's tedious defeatism.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Aug 18, 2023 13:20:36 GMT
It's a complete waste of time, this whole discussion. Not that it stops us having it every few months! It's not a waste of time. Just because we'll never find a consensus doesn't mean it's not interesting in itself. It might have been interesting the first eight times we did it.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 13:20:48 GMT
He was, but no longer. He now sells His work now sells in the biggest and most prestigious auction houses for considerable sums. Fixed it for you. Artists don't consign their own work for auction, unless it's for charity. It's the collectors who've consigned his work and driven up the value. I believe though that he profits from it. There was that work he made that self-destructed, he obviously made that in some collaboration with the auction house ( I think it was Sotheby's).
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 13:21:16 GMT
It produced this.... It is beautiful Dougie. I wonder what the artist would have created if left to his own devices. I'm grateful for this. Would he have created all that art if he wasn't funded by the church? The religious nature of art like this is what gives it its symbolic power and meaning that even non-religious people can surely understand. You can't divorce the two.
|
|
|
Post by Half Machine Lipschitz on Aug 18, 2023 13:24:46 GMT
Fixed it for you. Artists don't consign their own work for auction, unless it's for charity. It's the collectors who've consigned his work and driven up the value. I believe though that he profits from it. There was that work he made that self-destructed, he obviously made that in some collaboration with the auction house ( I think it was Sotheby's). Oh yeah, I forgot about that publicity stunt. My point still stands in the general sense.
|
|
|
Post by davey on Aug 18, 2023 13:28:52 GMT
I don’t think you can judge a culture you live in. I’m not sure how well any of us can perceive our culture. You kinda need the step back that time affords you.
Like…right now someone can bring up that, ’where is today’s Mozart or Rembrandt’ argument and feel pretty confident of it. But for all we know, we might find out that one or two folks working in Van Gogh-like obscurity could be discovered and 100 years from now be seen as definitive artists of our era.
Now if you want to argue that our existing cultural marketplace is largely shit…no argument from me. With a few exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 13:35:15 GMT
It is beautiful Dougie. I wonder what the artist would have created if left to his own devices. I'm grateful for this. Would he have created all that art if he wasn't funded by the church? The religious nature of art like this is what gives it its symbolic power and meaning that even non-religious people can surely understand. You can't divorce the two. And yet if I'm honest my eyes glaze over a bit when I wonder around a gallery of 16th century religious art. Of course I can appreciate the sheer spectacle and be awed by the technical ability that went into producing it. I can enjoy the intellectual process of reading about the artists and the times they lived in. But what I don't get, most of the time anyway, is a deep emotional charge from what I see, the cultural and temporal distance is too big to bridge. That's just me, but I also think it's true of many others too. That's probably why the Impressionists continue to be so popular, we can still relate to that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Aug 18, 2023 13:37:32 GMT
If it's not past the test of time why do hundreds of thousands of tourists each year visit Florence or Paris to view this stuff? Why am I visiting Rome again and paying just to see the Pieta and the Sistine chapel hundreds of years after they were completed? Why is some fella from Beijing doing the same thing? Largely because its what you do when you go to these places. People have been told that here is the high art that should be appreciated, and they visit (*edit - this sounded snobby, but wasnt meant to. Its what we all do, and we all enjoy it, we're looking for curated value, we're not mindless drones). Like we've discussed elsewhere, you go to the Louvre, but it's not the Mona Lisa that takes your interest, but it's the one that everyone is crowded around. I'm not saying there's no value in what you call high art, but it's rare that you go yto these places and it's the icon that you remember. It's normally something less well known that strikes you. And is it high art? How are you defining that? If its not Leonardo, but a half-forgotten name, is it of lesser worth? Is it no longer high art? My point about passing the test of time is just that so few are in the league of names being mentioned. But does that actually make their works of less worth, or of lesser art? And on the flipside of the coin, you go to somewhere like the Louvre, and there's so many classical sculptures of similar style, they become meaningless. You walk past them, just corridor furniture, despite the craft and dedication needed to create them. Are they high art?
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 13:38:28 GMT
It is beautiful Dougie. I wonder what the artist would have created if left to his own devices. I'm grateful for this. Would he have created all that art if he wasn't funded by the church? The religious nature of art like this is what gives it its symbolic power and meaning that even non-religious people can surely understand. You can't divorce the two. Well, it's commissioned, altered by the employer if it doesn't reflect the message that it was created for. As a non - religious person the sculpture ( every virgin and child also ) makes it difficult/ impossible ,I guess ,for me to care about symbolic power, when that really means oppression and lack of freedom of expression. I see Lichtensteins BLAM and I appreciate it, care for it, more.
|
|