Sijun Forums :: View topic - The Turner Prize... am I in a minority here?

ceenda · member Member # Joined: 27 Jun 2000 Posts: 2030

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1698000/1698032.stm

I'm sure that we don't need a another debate on "what is art?", but this has to be taking the piss.

This is the UK's "most prestigous Art award". Quite frankly, it makes me ashamed to be an artist in Britain.

Norling · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 6:43 am

It is art. It is good art. But it's not the kind of art i would like to have at home.

wayfinder · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:49 am

this is very funny.

Ahcri · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 8:08 am

Conceptual art is very cerebral, it usually requires you to actually be there, along with the sound, people, and environment. I think it might be good art, but I can only judge from that small picture, which is not very accurate (and I'm a little biased about installations!).

aquamire · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 9:09 am

*shudder*

I'd call it art if the guy didn't think the idea up while sitting on the toilet, and actually did something creative that took work and a lifetime of knowledge.

"Controversal" art pisses me off.. is there ANY creativity left in this world that isn't shock media? I swear, somebodys going to nail an actual person to a cross one of these days and call that art to.

Bungee · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 11:08 am

I'm flicking my light on and off right now... Who knew...? I AM a brilliant artist!

Now I'm creating a groundbreaking piece - turning my monitor on and off!

I'm going to be rich as hell if I keep going at this pace!

Ahcri · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 11:46 am

I just don't understand how can anyone judge an installation art by a single picture. In my opinion, that's just not fair.

Anthony · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 11:51 am

Haha, got a good chuckle from that. I can't say it's not art ultimately, but I can say it's damn funny to me. :]

ceenda · member Member # Joined: 27 Jun 2000 Posts: 2030

Achri: Sorry, I should have been more specific. I have nothing against modern art and I'm probably wrong to judge a piece from a news article that I haven't actually been to myself.

However, do I have to go to the Louvre in order to judge the Mona Lisa? Do I have to go to America to be able to decide whether Sargent is a good painter? Do I have to go to Australia and visit caves to judge whether or not tribal artwork is in fact art?

The real crux here is money Achri.

If someone does something like this and calls it art then it is, at it's worst, a hoax.

However, if it's hoax at the taxpayer's expense... then it's FRAUD.

Is it not inconcievable that �20,000 could be better spent by the "art" council, as it calls itself?

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: ceenda ]

Awetopsy · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:55 pm

That's art like a room without a stove, fridge or sink is a kitchen.. :P

that takes almost no thought whatsoever.

Freddio · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:18 pm

art is whatever the artist defines it to be...

(although i did have a laugh when I saw another on of his works entitled "a lump of blue tac" )

Ahcri · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:20 pm

First of all, I forgot to say that 20000 pounds for an art such as this is pretty curious. And the artist openly challenges the viewers to interpret his work themselves without giving a clear explaination doesn't help the artist to redeem his work. One might wonder if he even has a clue about what he is doing. He might have, but we don't know.

Creeda: All of your examples are nice, but paintings and installations are different. Paintings are two dimensional, so you can see them in a book. But installations are like sculptures, you have to see every side of it to be able to fully appreciate it. So to answer all three of your questions: No, no, and yes. Because an object's interaction with the space can't be seen only through a picture. A picture may help us understand with a clear description besides it.

I guess I'm clueless about this one too, after a couple of viewings of that picture, I still don't get it. Just so you know I'm not saying this is brilliant, not really. But I do appreciate installation arts if I'm there to see them.

suny · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:25 pm

this is Art:

beuaaark

S.

Awetopsy · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:35 pm

excuse my while I go throw up..

Jezebel · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 4:17 pm

Personally I think art is not what the artist says it is, but what the viewer says it is - which at times, of course, is the artist.

From another article about this same subject:

"Some of the more unusual entries in recent years have included a soiled bed, a pickled cow and an elephant dung painting."

A SOILED BED?? I mean come on...

That artist can shit on his sheets all he wants and call it art - but if I were to see it, I would call it what it I think it really is. Crap. No pun intended :P

That's just rediculous to me.

LinaBo · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 4:54 pm

ROFLMAO *laughs*

Man, is that ever funny. If the light hanging from my ceiling doesn't inspire me, I highly doubt that lights, ANY lights, no matter where they are, are going to inspire me much more than that.

To me, art takes skill, creativity, and emotion. All of which this 'piece' and many others like it lack.
I would accept that 'open to interpretation' B.S. if there was actually something to interpret.

oh, and here's another piece mentioned in the article I found quite amusing:

quote

Quote:

Nelson's work has been mistaken for real storeroom

Probably because it is? come on, what is there to appreciate here?

what really perturbs me about this kind of 'art' is that I work my butt off to increase my skills and become a better artist, and all these people have to do is put on a blindfold (or so it would seem), throw some trash around, and watch the money come rolling in.

puhlease.

marky · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 5:32 pm

If you say you dont understand - you are stupid.
If say you dont get it your education is lacking.
If you say you are unmoved you are emotionally retarded.

If youve still got enough courage to be honest after that then you are a better person than 95% of Art critics and for that matter Artists in the world.

Martin Creed (this years winner) is actually just another in a long line of scottish art school opportunists- when you see him interviewed he seems to have an IQ of about 95. See the scottish accent gives it a kind of chic cool which prevents the mostly English Art establishment forget their normal "he is too thick to be an artist" prejudice.

This opportunism is reserved for people with the boredom, futility and the time to spend 8 hours a day sticking pieces of blu tak to a wall. Its either that or spend the rest of your life plastering walls for a living. Whats the difference? Well potentially �20,000 ... if your lucky.

I went to Art Scool too in Scotland, and the whole art scene up there and in Britain generally has dissapeared so far up its own arse that its almost a work of art in its own right.

And if that sounds like sour grapes by the way, its not,so there!

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: marky ]

Guy · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 6:10 pm

well i for one think this is everything BUT art. like some one else said. it should take some effort, skill and knoledge.

i dont know, but i really find this sad. when i've been trying hard to improve my skills (as a lot of us here are always doing) and land a decent paying job. yet people like this guy get a lot money for doing that stuff. maybe i'm the one going about art all wrong these days. maybe i should be like this guy: http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSWeirdNews0112/05_ca-cp.html then again. maybe not...

burn0ut · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 6:23 pm

WHAT THE GAY?!!!!!

LinaBo · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:19 pm

Art should make you think, but it shouldn't be so devoid of a theme that it could mean just anything. Any real artist at least has a concept when they set to work, a reason for doing the piece. I know I sure do, as do the artists I know. When a see a piece by someone who didn't care about it (a 'whatever' piece, if you will), I can see the difference in emotion. You can tell when something isn't from the heart.

this especially irritates me (in reference to the article Guy linked to):

quote

Quote:

"I don't believe it is unusual in the arts world, especially in terms of contemporary art which I understand for the average person is often very challenging and difficult to understand.

So they're paying taxpayers money on something they don't expect the majority of the public to understand? Then what is it's worth? There are people struggling to feed their children and hold onto jobs, while paying exorbitant taxes to a pompous and out of touch Canadian government, here.

that's just bull.

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: LinaBo ]

Anthony · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:28 pm

""I think people can make of it what they like. I don't think it is for me to explain it. "

You know what's funny is that I used that same line in High School AP Art with a sculpture of mine. It was complete BS of course, I just didn't want to put any effort into the piece.

sacrelicious · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:48 pm

Look at the shit-eating grin on this guy's face. You just know he's thinking, "I can't believe I just won 20,000 pounds for a fucking empty room!"

Bungee · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:53 pm

I am not a talented artist. I dabble and enjoy art, but don't have the natural talent, nor the dedication to become a "great" artist. I come to this site to enjoy and be blown away by the talent here!

Having said that, I find it difficult to enjoy or appreciate some forms of art. I figure if I can do it, it can't be that great. UNLESS there is a thought process that can explain the simplicity of something, such as a flicking light, for example.

If I feel I could actually recreate a piece of artwork, I will not be that impressed - except for the HOW and the WHY they came to create it. The ideas behind some of this "ridiculous" art can be more brilliant than the finest piece of art!

Too bad this guy received thousands of pounds for something he isn't willing to substantiate. I can flick a light on and off and tell other people to figure it out, so I'm reluctant to declare this art.

Just my opinion on something that couldn't be more subjective!

c · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 8:17 pm

i find it funny how self-proclaimed artists ar so quick to judge other artists.

is that art? i dont know, i don't know much about about the more intellectual aspects of art/fine art/installation etc. so i'll admit, yea, i don't get it, but if someone wants to explain it to me then i'll listen! how can i judge something i dont understand?

it's easy to fall into the whole artrenewel mentality.

spooge's quick conceptual work? whats with the juvenile scribbles! that's not art!

breakerboy's editorial illustrations? can't he draw a real person? that's not art!

canistr's abstract figures? a 5yr old could draw better, that's not art!

yea, it could all be bullshit, with that smug ass smile of his and 20,000 cool ones in his bank account, but so could every piece of art that isn't 'realistic' or whatever.

i wish i knew everything about art and art history and could say, yes, this is art and this is not, but until i do i'll just be content with knowing that i don't know.

Socar MYLES · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 8:51 pm

I've always looked at art as a form of communication. Some installation art communicates brilliantly. You walk into the room where it's been set up and say "Ahhhh...." You understand something, or you get a feeling from it, or you get a message, loud and clear.

It's hard to get a sense of what the artist is on about in this case, though. I'd be the first to admit that it's hard to judge installation art without being there and seeing it, but even the artist doesn't seem to have any idea of what it's supposed to be about.

So, as I see it, it fails to communicate anything at all--not even a feeling or an abstract idea. It was mistaken for an empty room, for heaven's sake.

And since I'm arguing that art is a form of communication (which not everyone will agree with, I'm sure), I would have to say that in my opinion, this is a disastrous failure as a work of art.

roundeye · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 8:59 pm

i dont think art should be defined by the artist. i dont think art should be defined by the art elite. the statement "art is whatever the artist defines it to be" is cyclical. chicken, egg. the cycle is broken when someone says the emperor is in fact naked, that he is not an artist, that it is not art, that it is shit. why can i say that? because im an art consumer. the viewer validates art, not the artist.

jr · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 9:06 pm

right on roundeye.
i love how people pretend to be cultured and defend this sort of work. it's just lame. these competitions for "modern artwork" are lame. the criteria is nonexistent. though i did get a good chuckle when reading the comments from teh critics.

J Bradford · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 9:22 pm

i don't consider this art. but that's my opinion. im sure other's share it, and even if a worldwide audience were to say it's art, that doesn't change anything. i guess it boils down to what roundeye said.

so to ramble on a bit further; i think it's time i open my closet door, add a few objects here and there, and go win some money to buy myself a new car.

c · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2001 11:49 pm

good comments here, and i agree for the most part. just saying it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind

MeatyCheesyBoy · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2001 12:06 am

I tried not to judge the piece since I haven't actually seen it, who knows, maybe if I were there, I'd be blown away by the gebius of it all but I didn't really like the part of the article that said,

-------------------------------------------
And when asked the key question about the idea behind his winning exhibit, he said: "I think people can make of it what they like. I don't think it is for me to explain it.
-------------------------------------------

It seems like thats just a cop out to me. If you can just use that answer then Bungee's monitor "art" is every bit as valid because he doesn't have to put any actual thought into it, he can just leave the meaning of the "art" for other people to infer.