Banksy

heavymental

James Cameron used Hopper's Nighthawks on the set of Bladerunner to explain how he wanted the film to feel. A good example of how art conveys atmosphere. Just paint on canvas but it makes us feel.

RideOnTime

Can I compare thee to a summer's day...

team47b

...it depends, is that an English summer's day?

pinno

team47b wrote:

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.

Alternitavely, it is symmetrical, cold, lifeless, a contrived picture of a contrived man made landscape, bereft of warmth and feeling - like an empty fridge with no shelves. It has about as much atmosphere as the empty fridge on a grey day in the middle of a green mono-culture preened and disinfected field. Like a DDT apocolypse.
Seen as we can compare 'visual communication', I have to exorcise this green field with un-naturally straight sculptured and interfered with river with this:

rjsterry

pinarello001 wrote:

Alternatively, it is symmetrical, cold, lifeless, a contrived picture of a contrived man made landscape, bereft of warmth and feeling - like an empty fridge with no shelves. It has about as much atmosphere as the empty fridge on a grey day in the middle of a green mono-culture preened and disinfected field. Like a DDT apocalypse.

I genuinely like that description. It's not the reaction I got, but so what? Maybe it's actually closer to what Gursky was trying to say? Just because a work elicits a negative reaction, doesn't mean it's not any good.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Alternatively, it is symmetrical, cold, lifeless, a contrived picture of a contrived man made landscape, bereft of warmth and feeling - like an empty fridge with no shelves. It has about as much atmosphere as the empty fridge on a grey day in the middle of a green mono-culture preened and disinfected field. Like a DDT apocalypse.

I genuinely like that description. It's not the reaction I got, but so what? Maybe it's actually closer to what Gursky was trying to say? Just because a work elicits a negative reaction, doesn't mean it's not any good.

Fair point.

GiantMike

pinarello001 wrote:

While I think the colours are a little overdone, I prefer this to the Gursky photo.

This is my fave artist though, John Singer Sargent more info here

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

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 spent an hour diverting through Edinburgh (mainly due to the maze that is Edinburgh roadworks) I can categorically state that the picture is not on display. :evil:
I spent a wee while looking at what was on display, whilst being followed by staff and generally made to feel as welcome as a strangers fart in a spacesuit, and can say that IMHO nothing came close to what Mother Nature had on show outside.

Other opinions are available.

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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 spent an hour diverting through Edinburgh (mainly due to the maze that is Edinburgh roadworks) I can categorically state that the picture is not on display. :evil:
I spent a wee while looking at what was on display, whilst being followed by staff and generally made to feel as welcome as a strangers fart in a spacesuit, and can say that IMHO nothing came close to what Mother Nature had on show outside.

Other opinions are available.

Yes, galleries do hold far more work in their collections than they actually have on display. I do find it pretty sad that the majority of publicly held art is not actually on show, but in a warehouse.

I think natural beauty is something quite different from art. Art is something that human beings create to communicate something (however imperfectly) to other human beings. A beautiful landscape or sunset isn't a form of communication, however stunning it is. Why we find particular natural phenomena beautiful, and others not is another fascinating subject in itself.

meursault

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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 spent an hour diverting through Edinburgh (mainly due to the maze that is Edinburgh roadworks) I can categorically state that the picture is not on display. :evil:
I spent a wee while looking at what was on display, whilst being followed by staff and generally made to feel as welcome as a strangers fart in a spacesuit, and can say that IMHO nothing came close to what Mother Nature had on show outside.

Other opinions are available.

I am guilty of warning them you may turn up, to beef up security.

FocusZing

pinno

How did he do that and not be seen?!

crispybug2

Pinno wrote:

How did he do that and not be seen?!

Simple, scaffolding and sheeting

pinno

t's simple yet it's brilliant, like a lot of Banksy stuff. People may say that it can't be both simple and brilliaant but they didn't think it themselves.

Garry H

Nah, it's shite. Just more lefty bollox

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

t's simple yet it's brilliant, like a lot of Banksy stuff. People may say that it can't be both simple and brilliaant but they didn't think it themselves.

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats. I'm sure you could come up with similar ideas though I doubt it was Banksy who came up with this concept in the first place.

shortfall

Pinno wrote:

team47b wrote:

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.

Alternitavely, it is symmetrical, cold, lifeless, a contrived picture of a contrived man made landscape, bereft of warmth and feeling - like an empty fridge with no shelves. It has about as much atmosphere as the empty fridge on a grey day in the middle of a green mono-culture preened and disinfected field. Like a DDT apocolypse.
Seen as we can compare 'visual communication', I have to exorcise this green field with un-naturally straight sculptured and interfered with river with this:

Is that a Pino? My mother in law has a couple of his (hand embellished canvas).

joe2008

Nicely done, but about 10 months late.

There must be fair number of people involved to get the scaffolding up and down overnight; all without anyone noticing?.

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

t's simple yet it's brilliant, like a lot of Banksy stuff. People may say that it can't be both simple and brilliaant but they didn't think it themselves.

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats. I'm sure you could come up with similar ideas though I doubt it was Banksy who came up with this concept in the first place.

as a heathen could you spell out for me what that idea is

haydenm

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

t's simple yet it's brilliant, like a lot of Banksy stuff. People may say that it can't be both simple and brilliaant but they didn't think it themselves.

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats. I'm sure you could come up with similar ideas though I doubt it was Banksy who came up with this concept in the first place.

as a heathen could you spell out for me what that idea is

I think it's called 'being left wing', apparently it's been done before though

pinno

Shortfall wrote:

[

Is that a Pino? My mother in law has a couple of his (hand embellished canvas).

Yep. Love his work. She's lucky.

shortfall

Pinno wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

[

Is that a Pino? My mother in law has a couple of his (hand embellished canvas).

Yep. Love his work. She's lucky.

Yeah me too.

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

t's simple yet it's brilliant, like a lot of Banksy stuff. People may say that it can't be both simple and brilliaant but they didn't think it themselves.

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats. I'm sure you could come up with similar ideas though I doubt it was Banksy who came up with this concept in the first place.

as a heathen could you spell out for me what that idea is

Just the idea of subverting existing space. It's not much different to the pavement artists who chalk creatures crawling out from the cracks in the pavement; pick a random urban image and it's pretty easy to imagine what Banksy might do with it. It's fun and amusing but I struggle to see it much as art. I think if people still value it in 100 years then maybe it will have proved itself but there's a lot of this sort of thing being churned out now which folk seem too quick to value. I'd like to think that Tracy's bed will one day end up in the skip it deserves to be in (though of course it won't!).

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

t's simple yet it's brilliant, like a lot of Banksy stuff. People may say that it can't be both simple and brilliaant but they didn't think it themselves.

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats. I'm sure you could come up with similar ideas though I doubt it was Banksy who came up with this concept in the first place.

Though, to be fair, Vivaldi did that in music, and he still gets away with it.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats.

Isn't this basically all artists?

fat daddy

briantrumpet wrote:

Vivaldi did that in music, and he still gets away with it.

errr, not sure he "still" gets away with it .... more that he hasn't composed anything since 1729

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats.

Isn't this basically all artists?

maybe that is why the likes of da Vinci, Michelangelo and Picasso get the acclaim for being all-rounders

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

He's had one idea which he endlessly repeats.

Isn't this basically all artists?

I think that as time has moved on, so artists tend to evolve their styles. I would be relatively difficult to experiment much in the 18th century but look at most impressionists and their early work is radically different to their later work (especially if viewed from the perspective of contemporary opinion). So far, Banksy has demonstrated that he makes a mean stencil and has a pot of white paint, a pot of black paint and a pot of grey paint. And occasionally a pot of red paint.

Also, art in the past has been more about the creation of the image than some conceptual idea behind it. When the idea is repeated endlessly, it's hard not to wonder what is the point (which is where I end up with Banksy). An endlessly repeated idea that results in an image that is judged only for what it is seems more acceptable and valuable to me.

TheBigBean

Rolf F wrote:

I think that as time has moved on, so artists tend to evolve their styles. I would be relatively difficult to experiment much in the 18th century but look at most impressionists and their early work is radically different to their later work (especially if viewed from the perspective of contemporary opinion). So far, Banksy has demonstrated that he makes a mean stencil and has a pot of white paint, a pot of black paint and a pot of grey paint. And occasionally a pot of red paint.

Also, art in the past has been more about the creation of the image than some conceptual idea behind it. When the idea is repeated endlessly, it's hard not to wonder what is the point (which is where I end up with Banksy). An endlessly repeated idea that results in an image that is judged only for what it is seems more acceptable and valuable to me.

If it was only one idea, two paints and a stencil there would be lots of similar pieces being created, and his work wouldn't be so distinctive.

rolf_f

TheBigBean wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I think that as time has moved on, so artists tend to evolve their styles. I would be relatively difficult to experiment much in the 18th century but look at most impressionists and their early work is radically different to their later work (especially if viewed from the perspective of contemporary opinion). So far, Banksy has demonstrated that he makes a mean stencil and has a pot of white paint, a pot of black paint and a pot of grey paint. And occasionally a pot of red paint.

Also, art in the past has been more about the creation of the image than some conceptual idea behind it. When the idea is repeated endlessly, it's hard not to wonder what is the point (which is where I end up with Banksy). An endlessly repeated idea that results in an image that is judged only for what it is seems more acceptable and valuable to me.

If it was only one idea, two paints and a stencil there would be lots of similar pieces being created, and his work wouldn't be so distinctive.

The distinctiveness is a lot down to it being one idea, two paints etc. If he had more variety then his work would be harder to identify which would then make it less predictable and therefore perhaps more worthy of discussion. And, of course, there are plenty of pseudo Banksy's being created. I've seen a fair few around Leeds. Ideas much the same but poorer execution.