For Art's Sake!

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Sketching yourself at all Auditor #9?

I have plenty plans and intentions but ..

TGFC has a couple of nifty art packages on his site - Picassoish and DIY Manga - did you see?

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Sketching yourself at all Auditor #9?

I have plenty plans and intentions but ..

TGFC has a couple of nifty art packages on his site - Picassoish and DIY Manga - did you see?

Yes it's very neat and nifty indeed. He's been industrious and productive .. !

There are some great regional galleries both private, as in dealerships, as well as public which have developed around the country over the last decade. One such example is the Highlanes Gallery in Drogheda. It houses a very good permanent collection as well as many interesting temporary exhibits throughout the year. Would recommend that anyone visit.

I don't have €4,000 to buy it Auditor! Clearly the people there on the night didn't think that it was worth it either. I do think that it is a great piece of art though. I would love a piece of sculpture by Rowan Gillespie - like the famine sculptures. So if I had that much money I would probably be more looking for a little piece by him!

Here is the goat:

That's deadly - did you make that johnfás? Sorry if you already said if someone else did. Looks really weird. Is that glass or clay and lead between the pieces? I like it.

No I didn't make it - it was a gift of sorts to us. It is by an artist from the North named John Kindness. I think it is mainly cement between the pieces.

There are various other pieces by him to view on his website.
www.johnkindness.co.uk

A doggy of the same:

Amazing dog.

Just back from the Art Ireland fair at the RDS. Great to see the vitality which remains within the art world, particularly within the newcomers to the market. It is a pity that the economic situation is likely to stifle them over the coming years. Very few sales from what I heard.

My favourite sculpture, just on the right inside the main doors of St. Peter's. Michelangelo was 24 when he did this. Scary. Don't concentrate on the scale of Christ to Mary too much though...

Always a big fan of Dada too, since discovering Jarry's Pere Ubu at 16. John Heartfield a particular favourite, tying in with my obsession with the Third Reich and the War (still can't get my head around a whole civilisation going completely apesh1t)...

Would you argue, Toxic, that those latter images would fit better under a thread title 'For Politics' Sake?'

I like the second one particularly. I can't read the script in white though and can't find an image that I can enlarge to read it properly.

His work is anachronistically modern - it's strange that there seems to be no one of his quality producing that kind of satire today - at least as far as I'm aware. It makes Martyn Turner's work seem almost antediluvian by contrast. It's also startlingly aggressive.

I feel conned. I tuned into the Antiques Roadshow this evening in anticipation of the first 1 million pound valuation in the show's history. I was hoping it would be some excellent find from somebody's dusty attic. Instead it was a contemporary piece, a maquette of the Angel of the North and the lad who brought it knew full well what it was worth. What a con.

johnfás wrote:

I feel conned. I tuned into the Antiques Roadshow this evening in anticipation of the first 1 million pound valuation in the show's history. I was hoping it would be some excellent find from somebody's dusty attic. Instead it was a contemporary piece, a maquette of the Angel of the North and the lad who brought it knew full well what it was worth. What a con.

The AR has lost a lot of its original charm, which as you said was about a dear old lady discovering that Aunty Aggie's monstrosity was a T'ang horse.
Last time I watched it there were a lot of sharp-eyed buyers looking for a free valuation.

johnfás wrote:

I feel conned. I tuned into the Antiques Roadshow this evening in anticipation of the first 1 million pound valuation in the show's history. I was hoping it would be some excellent find from somebody's dusty attic. Instead it was a contemporary piece, a maquette of the Angel of the North and the lad who brought it knew full well what it was worth. What a con.

Poor Johnfás. Had the buyer at least bought it at good value?

He didn't say what he paid for it but he sat on the council that approved the planning permission for the Angel of the North so perhaps it was a present from the artist. It is a fantastic sculpture though, if anyone is ever up near Newcastle it is well worth a look.

Just a pity about the thing they want to stick into the Liffey by the same artist. Does nothing for me anyway.

Kate P wrote:

Would you argue, Toxic, that those latter images would fit better under a thread title 'For Politics' Sake?'

I like the second one particularly. I can't read the script in white though and can't find an image that I can enlarge to read it properly.

His work is anachronistically modern - it's strange that there seems to be no one of his quality producing that kind of satire today - at least as far as I'm aware. It makes Martyn Turner's work seem almost antediluvian by contrast. It's also startlingly aggressive.

I think it's pure art, though of a political bent. I was struck by Dada and its adherents' subsequent manifestations very young, mostly because it seemed so modern (like people who had been teleported back in time to be trapped in the wrong era)...

The text below translates as “Whoever reads bourgeois newspapers becomes blind and deaf. Away with these stultifying bandages.” The translation of the small text on the right hand side is partially the following: “I AM A CABBAGE HEAD. DO YOU KNOW MY LEAVES? FROM WORRIES I AM AT MY WIT’S END, BUT I KEEP QUIET AND HOPE FOR A SAVIOUR… I DON’T WANT TO SEE AND HEAR ANYTHING, OR TO INTERFERE WITH PUBLIC AFFAIRS…”

Vorwarts was the Social Democrats paper, wasn't it. When push came to shove, they sent the troops in against the workers.

I've a folder of old reproductions of Heartfield's work somewhere. Well worth digging out.

Georg Grosz is pretty strong too in a different way.

Pure art? There's a debate in itself!! And I wonder whether that's in the spirit of dadaism anyway which would seem to me to have been essentially political rather than artistic in its aims. In Herzfeld's work, I see there's a political propaganda at work that is at least as significant as the artistic impulse.

Kate P wrote:

Pure art? There's a debate in itself!! And I wonder whether that's in the spirit of dadaism anyway which would seem to me to have been essentially political rather than artistic in its aims. In Herzfeld's work, I see there's a political propaganda at work that is at least as significant as the artistic impulse.

Sorry, probably badly phrased. What I meant was that the political element doesn't detract from its being a piece of art, i.e. its not a zero-sum thing.

toxic avenger wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Pure art? There's a debate in itself!! And I wonder whether that's in the spirit of dadaism anyway which would seem to me to have been essentially political rather than artistic in its aims. In Herzfeld's work, I see there's a political propaganda at work that is at least as significant as the artistic impulse.

Sorry, probably badly phrased. What I meant was that the political element doesn't detract from its being a piece of art, i.e. its not a zero-sum thing.

I understood that to be what you meant, but I wonder if you could apply the same logic to these? Are these primarily art or politics and who decides? Is it the creator or the observer?

Kate P wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Pure art? There's a debate in itself!! And I wonder whether that's in the spirit of dadaism anyway which would seem to me to have been essentially political rather than artistic in its aims. In Herzfeld's work, I see there's a political propaganda at work that is at least as significant as the artistic impulse.

Sorry, probably badly phrased. What I meant was that the political element doesn't detract from its being a piece of art, i.e. its not a zero-sum thing.

I understood that to be what you meant, but I wonder if you could apply the same logic to these? Are these primarily art or politics and who decides? Is it the creator or the observer?

As with art generally, I suppose it's a subjective thing, braver people than me have failed to adequately win that argument. Personally I would argue that Heartfield is different from the above examples, the integrity of the medium remaining paramount, as opposed to a visual representation of secondary importance to the message (perhaps it's a quality control thing). Several holes could be punched in my argument, I'm aware, but, as I said, it's a subjective thing...

Drat - I was hoping you'd argue it for argument's sake; even if braver people than you have failed to win the argument about what constitutes art, it's still one worth having. To be honest, I agree that with Heartfield the message is just about secondary to the medium - for me it's in the level of detail that gives that integrity to the style. It goes beyond mere communication.

Sadly, I had been kind of hoping you could be prodded into defending your view...

*not that that should stop you now, by the way, should you wish to defend it!*

Kate P wrote:

Drat - I was hoping you'd argue it for argument's sake; even if braver people than you have failed to win the argument about what constitutes art, it's still one worth having. To be honest, I agree that with Heartfield the message is just about secondary to the medium - for me it's in the level of detail that gives that integrity to the style. It goes beyond mere communication.

Sadly, I had been kind of hoping you could be prodded into defending your view...

*not that that should stop you now, by the way, should you wish to defend it!*

My suicidal stubbornness in the face of contrary overwhelming logic unfortunately dissipated by my mid-to-late 20s, after several unfortunate forays into engaging my mouth before my mind (inadequate as it is). I prefer now to stand on the hill above the opposing troops, entering only when one set is surrounded completely...