• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Melchett

Is art that is not popular simply elitist Emperors New Clothes?

Recommended Posts

Article on bbc r4 this morning ( I know, I know) about some art junket in Venice and some artist woman I’ve never heard of they were gushing I over. I didn’t hear them mention what sort of art she made. Turner landscapes? Sculptures made from her own poo and piss? Couldn’t say. But it did get me thinking.

Mozart was the Andrew Lloyd Weber of his day....

notwithstanding that no one will ever convince me that some modern crap that passes Itself off as art is so whether it is fleetingly popular or not, I tend to agree with my hypothesis. But if it’s never popular, it’s just wank for the elite to gush over and make them feel superior.

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will confess i might have missed it in the So-Called BBC article, what with the kettle boiling and water running and not a single fuck being given about what they were gushing on about, but I will reiterate, AFAICT, they never once actually mentioned what sort of art she made, or a famous piece by her. Could have been anything. All that, what I would regard as being 100% of the the fusking point unless you a  'performance artist' or communicator of art, seemed to be secondary to what plaudits she had recieved and why she was so worthy etc etc. 

Total wank.

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO most contemporary art of the type that gets fawned over by the chattering classes exists to act as a store of capital/investment. That's why you get ludicrous amounts paid for piles of old shit in the Tate Gallery. Then the surrounding services (art galleries, magazines, TV programmes, art foundations, art schools etc) are a kind of secondary parasite living off that original capital. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Hancock was a laugh with the subject in his movie "The Rebel".  

Fascinating how he looked so like Gordon Brown another comedian.

 

Image result for tony hancock the rebel images

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a film at the cinema at the moment called The Square, which takes the piss out of the pretentious, emperor's-new-clothes sycophantic work that is modern  art. Rave reviews from the critics and a Palme d'Or at Cannes, I presume in an "aren't we clever and wonderful for being able to laugh at ourselves" kind of way. I can only assume the film itself is a double bluff as it is itself one of the most tedious, pretentious piles of shit I have seen in a long time. It seems the critics took it seriously though and there was no little boy in the audience to point out the naked emperor to them.

Edited by The Idiocrat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Melchett said:

Article on bbc r4 this morning ( I know, I know) about some art junket in Venice and some artist woman I’ve never heard of they were gushing I over. I didn’t hear them mention what sort of art she made. Turner landscapes? Sculptures made from her own poo and piss? Couldn’t say. But it did get me thinking.

Mozart was the Andrew Lloyd Weber of his day....

notwithstanding that no one will ever convince me that some modern crap that passes Itself off as art is so whether it is fleetingly popular or not, I tend to agree with my hypothesis. But if it’s never popular, it’s just wank for the elite to gush over and make them feel superior.

Chris Ofili winning the Turner Prize with some elephant poo was pretty much the end of the mass interest in art in the UK, I think. I don't see why elephants (and their dung) should be particularly relevant to a man born and brought up in Manchester just because he's black. Pandering to that with a (previously) prestigious award like it's some kind of deep insight into the human condition is emblematic of all the contradictions and racism inherent in supposedly intellectual conceptions of "multiculturalism". Elephant dung aside, if one of my kids produced this, I'd bin it at the earliest opportunity:

scan-1.jpeg

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Idiocrat said:

There's a film at the cinema at the moment called The Square, which takes the piss out of the pretentious, emperor's-new-clothes sycophantic work that is modern  art. Rave reviews from the critics and a Palme d'Or at Cannes, I presume in an "aren't we clever and wonderful for being able to laugh at ourselves" kind of way. I can only assume the film itself is a double bluff as it is itself one of the most tedious, pretentious piles of shit I have seen in a long time. It seems the critics took it seriously though and there was no little boy in the audience to point out the naked emperor to them.

There was a fairly high profile group a few years back who opposed abstract conceptual art and the art establishment, they were called the Stuckists. They attracted a bit of media attention but fizzled out as a lot of the work they actually produced wasn't that good. I do recall one excellent interview between their leader Charles Thomson and some idiotic abstract artist who reckoned putting a bottle of washing up liquid on a plinth was art. Thomson lifted his foot up to the camera and said something like 'is this art? is my shoe art?!' really loudly and Paxo had to cut him off. 

Edit: just found the clip: 

 

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Thompson was probably THE celebrity artist of her day. Her painting "The Roll Call" stole the show at the Royal Academy exhibition in 1874, they even had to post a policemen to manage the crowd around the painting. It had been commissioned for £100 by a Manchester industrialist Charles Galloway. However, Queen Victoria insisted that she should buy it, and the work remains in the Royal Collection. She was nominated for membership of the Royal society off the back of that but her nomination was rejected, maybe because she was a woman, but more likely because the subject matter of her work was rabble rousing, popular nationalism. She's still not "a famous artist" celebrated for her art at a time when it was more difficult for women, and no "progressive" pushing the idea that women's contributions to art should be recognised will ever likely bring her up. The disconnect between what the people like and what the art world choose to celebrate has always been there.

Scotland forever

1280px-Scotland_Forever!.jpg

Roll call

1280px-Roll-call.JPG

The 28th Regiment

1920px-Butler_Lady_Quatre_Bras_1815.jpg

 

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Melchett said:

Article on bbc r4 this morning ( I know, I know) about some art junket in Venice and some artist woman I’ve never heard of they were gushing I over. I didn’t hear them mention what sort of art she made. Turner landscapes? Sculptures made from her own poo and piss? Couldn’t say. But it did get me thinking.

Mozart was the Andrew Lloyd Weber of his day....

notwithstanding that no one will ever convince me that some modern crap that passes Itself off as art is so whether it is fleetingly popular or not, I tend to agree with my hypothesis. But if it’s never popular, it’s just wank for the elite to gush over and make them feel superior.

What the actual fuck??

Sound familiar?

 

Edited by SNACR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, unregistered_guest said:

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Jack Vettriano yet. Not my cup of tea artistically - but popular. Shameful treatment by the establishment though.

Any 'popular' artist tends to get cold shouldered by the establishment. The poet John Betjeman and the comedian Peter Kay spring to mind. I think a lot of it is just jealousy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, unregistered_guest said:

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Jack Vettriano yet. Not my cup of tea artistically - but popular. Shameful treatment by the establishment though.

Some of his work is a bit near the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

Any 'popular' artist tends to get cold shouldered by the establishment. The poet John Betjeman and the comedian Peter Kay spring to mind. I think a lot of it is just jealousy. 

I would think a lot of it is closed shop. We don’t want the plebs getting in on the act. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, One percent said:

I had a beautiful box hedge until the box caterpillars got it

https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=760

nasty things 

May I suggest the Chemical Weapons thread a source of a potential remedy to the situation.

Judging by the images of the handwritten notes I'm sure all the ingrediants can be sourced your local corner shop and manufactured with basic kitchen utensils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

May I suggest the Chemical Weapons thread a source of a potential remedy to the situation.

Judging by the images of the handwritten notes I'm sure all the ingrediants can be sourced your local corner shop and manufactured with basic kitchen utensils.

Zapped the buggers with every chemical known to (wo)man. Nothing worked. I pulled it up in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.