Modern Art

Diamonds glued to a skull - that is what passes for art now?

Then again I never got the pile of house bricks or glowing green bunny either!!
 
Diamonds glued to a skull - that is what passes for art now?

Then again I never got the pile of house bricks or glowing green bunny either!!

I do share your "dont get it" view of much conceptual art, thinking it artifice rather than art. But I find this skull beautiful. Perhaps as I have made a few micro-mosaic items with semi-precious gems I can appreciate the work that went into it. And who knows, perhaps in 50,000 years someone will dig it up out of the ground and wonder at who had made such an object and why.

Tao
 
This piece brings to my mind the idea of the rise of hedonism, and the intellectual rationalizations we create in order to justify the pursuit of the desires of our hearts.
 
This piece brings to my mind the idea of the rise of hedonism, and the intellectual rationalizations we create in order to justify the pursuit of the desires of our hearts.

The rise of hedonism? I dont think you mean the same as me but I so agreeeee!! To me its like something out of the Kubrick/Clarke 2001 odyssey. Like some discovery as close to pivotal as the infinitely dark starscape of the obsidian obelisks, a skull composed of infinite greed - rather than infinite hope. I cannot imagine Hirsts inspiration for embarking on such an object but I think it will prove to be an enduring image / icon of our times. Good art never represents the same thing to all folks and thinking about this piece I am torn in so many directions it fulfils that criteria. I normally am unimpressed by overt displays of decadence but here I find something that transcends pure material greed and counterpoints the lengths so many would go to to acquire such temporal illusions of success. It is not easy to paint a "soul" of greed, a skull of diamonds is about as close as it gets. So for me the piece works, though it may well be it does not work in the way the artist intended.

T
 
Historically, visual art was for communication (often religious) or for recording (often portraits). With the rise of literacy and the invention of the camera these functions have become obsolete for the “public”, and so, by and large, there is no longer an agreement between the artist and the public (as there was in the past) as to what the function/s of art is. Visual art is therefore now often seen as redundant, except by rich people looking for a financial investment. I do not see an agreed function being developed any time soon between artists and many of the public.

s.
 
Okay so we have skull of dead person, covered in diamonds.

Communication = see, you can't take it with you. :p

You could have it put in the coffin or funeral pyre.:)

Which reminds me, I went past a road sign the other day marked "Natural Burial Ground." Sounds good I thought, maybe like a Tibetan Sky Burial but without the carrion birds.

s.
 
I just don't get modern art.

Not that I don't enjoy art from current artists, I'm just don't have the art background to understand what Modern Art is.

I mean wasn't all art modern at one time? And won't what is modern art today sometime become 21st century art or some name, style or ilk?

I like the skull covered with diamonds, and its value to me is much as Sally's selling seashells or Peter picking pickles...a value of a skull covered with diamonds is the value of a skull covered with diamonds.

I'd personally like to become the artist that covers every inch of the inside of his house with diamonds. Please send diamonds.
 
I once saw a critic review an exhibition by James Turrell. He was a lecturer, and had visited the show with some of his students, and in his review made reference to what one of them had said: "There's two types of art in the world, there's 'oh, wow!' art, and 'so what?' art. This is 'Oh Wow!' art."

Ah, the voice of youth! Such outspoken absoluteness!

But he has a point ... art is subjective ... and what is 'oh wow' for me might well be 'so what' for someone else ... if it moves you, it moves you, and if it doesn't, then just walk away. There's nothing wrong with the art, the artist, or you ... it's just the way it is.

When it comes to BritArt, then there is an addition to the mix, gallery owner/agents like Charles Saatchi and especially Jay Jopling (who represents most of the BritArt pack) are in it for the money, so a few years back we saw new 'movements' emerging in British Art with frightening regularity, almost on a par with 'new campaigns' in ad agencies (C.Saatchi being one of the most successful admen ever).

Damien Hirst is a forerunner/product/victim/casualty of this engineered movement (in my view some of his art is good, but not as good as he thinks it is ... most of what he says isn't good at all). Tracey Emin is another, her work representing the UK at the Venice Biennale was overwhelmingly 'so what' ... I thinks we're getting tired of her sexual (mis)adventures being presented as art.

Critics, artists, owners and buyers all observed that this frentic activity has destablised the UK art market, inflating prices and egos way beyond the norm...

Meanwhile Anish Kapoor, Andrew Long, Antony Gormley invariably have the 'oh wow!' effect on me ... but why? Couldn't say ...

Thomas
 
I think I shall stick with the old fashioned stuff (no surprise there then). Give me a Rembrandt, Bosch or Da Vinci and I am a happy bunny.

Give me a pile of house bricks and I'll build a shed!!! Give me a skull covered in diamonds, I'll have the skull reburied and buy a painting by a Master with the proceeds of the diamond sale. :p
 
Meanwhile Anish Kapoor, Andrew Long, Antony Gormley invariably have the 'oh wow!' effect on me ... but why? Couldn't say ...

Thomas

Exactly. When people ask "What does it mean?" it's a totally ridiculous question. What does a pork chop mean?

No art "movement" was more castigated that Impressionism in its time, now look at it, you can't escape the stuff - tea towels, calendars, probably boxer shorts...

Saw the recent documentary on Gormley...oh wow...

s.
 
Bosch makes you are happy bunny?:eek:

s.

Of course, it may be unpleasant subject matter but his paintings speak to you, they have such vibrancy (is that a word or did I just make it up?). They speak of the torments of hell and how much I want to avoid them. :eek::D
 
Of course, it may be unpleasant subject matter but his paintings speak to you, they have such vibrancy (is that a word or did I just make it up?). They speak of the torments of hell and how much I want to avoid them. :eek::D

I seem to recall seeing his Hell triptych in a gallery in Venice. Certainly looked worse than Hull. Although...

s.
 
When it comes to BritArt, then there is an addition to the mix, gallery owner/agents like Charles Saatchi and especially Jay Jopling (who represents most of the BritArt pack) are in it for the money, so a few years back we saw new 'movements' emerging in British Art with frightening regularity, almost on a par with 'new campaigns' in ad agencies (C.Saatchi being one of the most successful admen ever).

Damien Hirst is a forerunner/product/victim/casualty of this engineered movement (in my view some of his art is good, but not as good as he thinks it is ... most of what he says isn't good at all). Tracey Emin is another, her work representing the UK at the Venice Biennale was overwhelmingly 'so what' ... I thinks we're getting tired of her sexual (mis)adventures being presented as art.

Critics, artists, owners and buyers all observed that this frentic activity has destablised the UK art market, inflating prices and egos way beyond the norm...

Meanwhile Anish Kapoor, Andrew Long, Antony Gormley invariably have the 'oh wow!' effect on me ... but why? Couldn't say ...

Thomas

I agree with you entirely Thomas. I dont think much of Hirsts work personally, but this piece I think is exceptional. That said it was created, from what I can gather, purely for wealth and not art and truthfully anyone with access to the £14 million for the diamonds and and an interest in lapidary could have made it.

My personal favourite contemporary UK artist is shunned and derided by the UK art world. Of course he is based here in Edinburgh and despite the scathing critics I believe his painting still command the highest price of any living UK artist. He is of course Jack Vettriano.

Tao
 

Attachments

  • vettriano.jpg
    vettriano.jpg
    66.4 KB · Views: 189
Back
Top