Banksy

ballysmate

daviesee wrote:

Nice enough. But not art.
Art tends to involve better composition.

Or something completely, obviously wrong. But deemed to be deliberate. See Train Station above. :roll:

This is why I am not an artist.

I thought it had earlier been established that if I think something is art, it is art?
Or did I misunderstand?

GiantMike

Ballysmate wrote:

I thought it had earlier been established that if I think something is art, it is art?
Or did I misunderstand?

So, is it art?

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I thought it had earlier been established that if I think something is art, it is art?
Or did I misunderstand?

So, is it art?

OK. Yes it is art if the eye of the beholder judges it to be so. :oops:
I was referring to the art world. ie - Knobs.

team47b

Art.

seanoconn

team47b wrote:

Art.

OMG! Tarp and cotton sheet again? It's gonna take ages to buff that out.

pinno

@T47 - is that a 'Conceptual' portrait of you by Mrs T with your sunnies on? Hell, that is going to take some amount of conceptualising.

daviesee

team47b wrote:

Art.

Is that what you were doing when you took time out to "decorate"?
Shouldnt have taken that long.

team47b

It's not conceptual it is in fact representational, figurative, and it's only abstraction is from context.

It's by an artist, it's in a gallery, so it's art.

MattC59

???

pinno

What was it Matt, Beans on toast again? Now you can wait a little and then give your opinion in BB on the Brussel Sprouts/Beans thread.

MattC59

pinarello001 wrote:

What was it Matt, Beans on toast again? Now you can wait a little and then give your opinion in BB on the Brussel Sprouts/Beans thread.

Didn't need to wait tonight, Mrs C has gone green !

heavymental

Is this thread now going to be people posting crap pictures and asking if they are art? :roll: What is that image team47b? I imagine, like I said earlier, that it is better viewed in the flesh. My posting the Mona Lisa was to illustrate that even the most famous pieces of art will appear rubbish when presented on the screen of a laptop/tablet/phone. The 'most expensive' photo posted earlier is in the flesh, 3 metres wide and I imagine also a bit more impressive seen hanging on the wall. £2.7 million is yes, expensive but there's no point snorting in derision immediately. To the buyer, it maybe represents a moment in art history worth owning. Hell, it might mean something that you haven't even thought of. Imagine that!?

From here... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... graph.html

Had I a disposable £2.7 million to spend on chromogenic dye and paper, and the necessary balls to do so (I would like to think I do, but until you’re in a crowded room waving an auction paddle…) then yesterday Andreas Gursky’s Rhine II would have had my money.

The three metre-wide print took the top spot on the most expensive photograph list when it sold for $4.3m at Christie’s New York. And that not six months after the last photography record was set; Cindy Sherman’s Untitled #97 was sold, also by Christie’s New York, in May for £2.4m. There’s good reason to believe that photography prices will continue to rise, with more people willing to invest large sums in it. In September, the National Gallery announced their first ever major blockbuster exhibition of photography next year, cementing the art form as a medium of major historic and cultural significance that now even the naysayers can’t deny.

That said, it could be a long time before a photograph comes along that will top Gursky’s print. This image is a vibrant, beautiful and memorable – I should say unforgettable - contemporary twist on Germany’s famed genre and favourite theme: the romantic landscape, and man’s relationship with nature.

But it is more than that. For all its apparent simplicity, the photograph is a statement of dedication to its craft. The late 1980s, when Gursky shot to attention, was a time when photography was first entering gallery spaces, and photographs were taking their place alongside paintings. Photography “as art”, at the time, was still brave and new, and the simplicity of this image shows a great deal of confidence in its effectiveness and potential for creating atmospheric, hyper-real scenarios that in turn teach us to see - and read - the world around us anew. The scale, attention to colour and form of his photography can be read as a deliberate challenge to painting's status as a higher art form. On top of that, Gursky’s images are extraordinary technical accomplishments, which take months to set up in advance, and require a lot of digital doctoring to get just right.

Also this might be interest... http://petapixel.com/2012/03/20/why-thi ... th-578500/

meursault

The Gursky image prolly needs to be seen in context too. In that his images go for one hell of a lot of money. The image has been digitally altered too, that's a whole other debate. As I said earlier I don't think art is anything to do with monetary value. That is about commodities and capitalism and economics.

If you can just open your mind to something being art, then what is the problem? No-one says you have to like it.

pinno

Andreas Gursky's Rhine II:



Absolutely shyte.

pinno

STC's picture of the sea in Brighton is better.

rjsterry

No. It isn't. STC's is not a bad snap, but GiantMike has already pointed out some technical issues. More importantly, with the seascape, you are pretty much viewing the original work here. With the Andreas Gursky image, you are looking at a low resolution grab of a 3 metre-wide print of a heavily manipulated digital photograph: it tells you less than buying a postcard of the image, which in itself tells you 2/5 of f*** all. Granted it's not his most accessible work, but if you have a look at some of his other works, then it might start to make more sense. Popping down to Tate Modern to see one of their Gursky prints might be a bit of a trek, but this one is in the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art in Edinburgh.

http://www.nationalgalleries.org/object/GMA%204286

Having actually seen that in the flesh, Rhine II still might not do much for you, but at least you'd be basing that view on the actual artwork, and not some crappy little JPEG.

Here's another of his where the manipulation is a little more obvious
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gursky-chicago-board-of-trade-ii-p2019

ballysmate

pinarello001 wrote:

Andreas Gursky's Rhine II:



Absolutely shyte.

Who bought this shite. Whoever it was, could you let him know I've got a shedload of holiday snaps he may be interested in.

heavymental

Ballysmate wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Andreas Gursky's Rhine II:



Absolutely shyte.

Who bought this shite. Whoever it was, could you let him know I've got a shedload of holiday snaps he may be interested in.

Are all your holiday snaps 3 metre wide prints!?

By the way... Is anyone actually reading posts on here. Myself and rjsterry post some background info and context and the next reply is an opinion that suggests you haven't bothered reading any context.

Of course its 'shyte' if you only see it on a computer screen.

daviesee

Heavymental wrote:

Are all your holiday snaps 3 metre wide prints!?

No.
But I have one that is well over 1m.
And getting a large print done is the easiest part of the process.

team47b

Heavymental wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Andreas Gursky's Rhine II:



Absolutely shyte.

Who bought this shite. Whoever it was, could you let him know I've got a shedload of holiday snaps he may be interested in.

Are all your holiday snaps 3 metre wide prints!?

By the way... Is anyone actually reading posts on here. Myself and rjsterry post some background info and context and the next reply is an opinion that suggests you haven't bothered reading any context.

Of course its 'shyte' if you only see it on a computer screen.

I thought it is a great image even on the screen, the composition is what makes this, at any size.

Imagine this as a painting consisting of six horizontal stripes made up of three tones of each of the two colours.

Look at the relative proportions of each of theses strips and compare them to the overall piece, can you not see the perfect use of the Persian section, so much more than if the Golden Section had been used. Mathematically brilliant.

With this in mind have a look at the paintings of Mark Rothko.

heavymental

daviesee wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

Are all your holiday snaps 3 metre wide prints!?

No.
But I have one that is well over 1m.
And getting a large print done is the easiest part of the process.

Yeh just pop down boots like Gursky did!

RideOnTime

daviesee wrote:

team47b wrote:

Art.

Is that what you were doing when you took time out to "decorate"?
Shouldnt have taken that long.

Where's the back story. What does this mean? What does it say about society? What does it say about western democracy and the new global order?

team47b

@Heavymental

to answer your question about the image I posted it is a painting, acrylic on canvas, part of a series of four paintings with a concept of 'decay', they are all figurative close ups to focus the eye and the mind on the detail out of context of their surroundings, in other words abstracted.

The important thing is not so much what it is or wether you like or dislike it or how much it's gallery price is but what it makes you feel/think.

@RideOnTime
"It is about the lack of concern as a society for our heritage, and is a reflection of attitudes at a local or global level" The artist.

RideOnTime

team47b wrote:

@Heavymental

to answer your question about the image I posted it is a painting, acrylic on canvas, part of a series of four paintings with a concept of 'decay', they are all figurative close ups to focus the eye and the mind on the detail out of context of their surroundings, in other words abstracted.

The important thing is not so much what it is or wether you like or dislike it or how much it's gallery price is but what it makes you feel/think.

@RideOnTime
"It is about the lack of concern as a society for our heritage, and is a reflection of attitudes at a local or global level" The artist.

You painted this?

rjsterry

team47b wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Andreas Gursky's Rhine II:



Absolutely shyte.

Who bought this shite. Whoever it was, could you let him know I've got a shedload of holiday snaps he may be interested in.

Are all your holiday snaps 3 metre wide prints!?

By the way... Is anyone actually reading posts on here. Myself and rjsterry post some background info and context and the next reply is an opinion that suggests you haven't bothered reading any context.

Of course its 'shyte' if you only see it on a computer screen.

I thought it is a great image even on the screen, the composition is what makes this, at any size.

Imagine this as a painting consisting of six horizontal stripes made up of three tones of each of the two colours.

Look at the relative proportions of each of theses strips and compare them to the overall piece, can you not see the perfect use of the Persian section, so much more than if the Golden Section had been used. Mathematically brilliant.

With this in mind have a look at the paintings of Mark Rothko.

I was going to mention Rothko as another example of an artist whose works need to be seen in the flesh. Printed copies, let alone lo-res jpegs, give no real idea of the scale and impact of the originals. It's like trying to judge a piece of music based on hearing it played on some teenager's phone on a noisy bus.

team47b

RideOnTime wrote:

team47b wrote:

@Heavymental

to answer your question about the image I posted it is a painting, acrylic on canvas, part of a series of four paintings with a concept of 'decay', they are all figurative close ups to focus the eye and the mind on the detail out of context of their surroundings, in other words abstracted.

The important thing is not so much what it is or wether you like or dislike it or how much it's gallery price is but what it makes you feel/think.

@RideOnTime
"It is about the lack of concern as a society for our heritage, and is a reflection of attitudes at a local or global level" The artist.

You painted this?

No, Mrs T is the artist, and that was a quote from her about the reasons behind this series of paintings

secretsam

rjsterry wrote:

I was going to mention Rothko as another example of an artist whose works need to be seen in the flesh. Printed copies, let alone lo-res jpegs, give no real idea of the scale and impact of the originals. It's like trying to judge a piece of music based on hearing it played on some teenager's phone on a noisy bus.

Rothko's work in the flesh are astonishing. I went to see the display of his works for a commission for a restaurant, iirc 6 pictures - each about 4x3 metres. It was genuinely emotional - I couldn't stay in the room too long, the atmosphere created was too oppressive. Rothko himself refused to let the restaurant have them as he didn't feel they were "right". But the works themselves were magnificent.

See also Hopper's work - seemingly simple paintings of everyday scenes, but incredibly evocative. But on a screen they look like postcards.

Mind you, everything Tracy Emin has ever done it utter, utter shite.

RideOnTime

rjsterry wrote:

team47b wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Andreas Gursky's Rhine II:



Absolutely shyte.

Who bought this shite. Whoever it was, could you let him know I've got a shedload of holiday snaps he may be interested in.

Are all your holiday snaps 3 metre wide prints!?

By the way... Is anyone actually reading posts on here. Myself and rjsterry post some background info and context and the next reply is an opinion that suggests you haven't bothered reading any context.

Of course its 'shyte' if you only see it on a computer screen.

I thought it is a great image even on the screen, the composition is what makes this, at any size.

Imagine this as a painting consisting of six horizontal stripes made up of three tones of each of the two colours.

Look at the relative proportions of each of theses strips and compare them to the overall piece, can you not see the perfect use of the Persian section, so much more than if the Golden Section had been used. Mathematically brilliant.

With this in mind have a look at the paintings of Mark Rothko.

I was going to mention Rothko as another example of an artist whose works need to be seen in the flesh. Printed copies, let alone lo-res jpegs, give no real idea of the scale and impact of the originals. It's like trying to judge a piece of music based on hearing it played on some teenager's phone on a noisy bus.

Seems to be a dispute between shite or shyte. Now which is it?

pinno

Edward Hopper is to me brilliant. I have prints of Lighthouse at two lIghts and the Martha McKean Of Wellfleet. You cannot compare a piece of art with a photograph (not that photography is not art).
Gursky's Rhine photo has so much symmetry it is mechanical. I see the lines and width of lines created by the path and the river and sky, but it is so mundane, bland, depressing.
Baxters landscapes have far better atmosphere.

Art is subjective. Given enough hype and critical acclaim, art can be turned into something far more valuable than it really is. I do not think Gursky's photo is worth the staggering 4.7m it went for.

team47b

pinarello001 wrote:

You cannot compare a piece of art with a photograph

I just did

Composition, colour, form, decisions that are made by the eye and the brain, are present in both so can easily be compared, visual communication doesn't distinguish between different art forms.

pinarello001 wrote:

it is so mundane, bland, depressing.

Or expansive, relaxing, flowing. We are all affected in different ways based on our own unique history, it's not what's there, but what you bring that is important.