h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As an admittedly pedantic aside, RF, when school qualifications used to be called GCEs, the term applied equally to 'O' levels, as well as 'A' levels. I assumed the present term of GCSE, also applied to both. You maybe right though. But my argument would apply equally to a GCSE in English Literature. If true that's really sad. I did poetry all through my secondary education, as part of English Literature lessons, and plenty at primary school too. I have written poetry consistently since I was seven. A love of poetry has enriched my life immensely. And after all, we are essentially a literary culture, artistically, with a long tradition of producing great poets and writers.

Maybe if Painting or other artistic manifestations were taught in school wide and long, as Effers studied poetry and literature, there would be more understanding concerning Art.

The more you study Art the more you like it.
YOu enjoy discovering messages or any other things that are not explicit at first sight in the work. This can happen with a painting, a film, a novel...

Art production is so vast that obviously, no all of us like the same things.
There is no much objetivity. That's true.
But if you study Art just for curiosity, not to show off how sensitive and smart you are, the line between objetivity and subjetivity becomes clearer.

Yes I agree Mar.

>> You're not one of those fools who believes the media notion that education is being dumbed down and schools are churning out uneducated children, are you? <<

See my comment in the post above.

You're the fool, bonobo. And I pity the fool.

RF

>> ...media notion that education is being dumbed down and schools are churning out uneducated children...<<

That's what they teach them at media schools. The old definition of a teacher as 'someone who can't do' anything else, is particularly apt about unemployable journalists and has-been broadcasters.

I speak as an unemployable journalist and has-been broadcaster who wouldn't dignify my failures by foisting my ignorance on wannabees.

peace
~jwf~

Sorry if I appeared patronising. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

Sanctimony, though? Never! The best Art is profane,

The best art is 'primitive'. Even when it isn't.
Like genuine 2000 year old Celtic art and the never-ending circle.
Decoration and meaning. That's art.
peace
~jwf~

The best Art I've seen in a long time:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwardthebonobo/sets/72157605726203231/

The building is super.

It is. The Artist knows and acknowledges that. His installations are site-specific. He's put the mirrors and handbags there (the handbags, incidentally, reference the mirrored tiling elsewhere in the gallery) so that the ceiling and columns are drawn in and become part of the piece.

Now...before anyone goes and suggests that such things are simply A Big Nothing...first watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew7adl-BYe4


Srsly, but: the Lambie is a total blast. All the punters I spoke to loved it.

I think some people just have a resistance or just downright lack of interest in learning about the ideas and reasons going on in a lot of conceptual art. Some but by no means all has little if any aesthetic component as normally thought of. Though some such as Marcus Harvey's paintings which reference Modernist expressionism and Pop are very exciting and aethetic to look at. But they are nor produced as pure aesthetic painting in their own right, they are mostly about reference. Same with Glen's Brown's paintings eg his paintings which are painstaking, slow creations sometimes using non oil paints of say Auerbach's thickly painted expressionst paintings of Modernism. Brach Lahore's beautiful shadows and light all taken from stills from 'The Postman always rings twice'. And if you don't know about the referncing concept behind the work you're missing out on all the conceptual reasons which provide the context for making the art in the first place. All this information is always provided at the shows, if you actually visit them.

And then this can be quite extreme, such as the one quoted by Ed above, or say Emin's bed. Yes of course many people sneer at such stuff.

Now I have no objection to people disliking/sneering or whatever at more recent postmodernist style art. But I do if they can't even be bothered to inform themselves minimally of any conceptual reasons behind the making thereof. Best not even bother looking at all in the first place, if you are that sort. Conceptual mainstream art. The clue is in the word "Concept', it's a lot about that. You may as well look at a hole in the road for roadworks, and like it or not, for all the relavence saying you dislike conceptual art with no idea of concept and reference that the artist is using.

Duchamps started the ball rolling in the twenties when he placed a urinal in an art gallery. Installation art is always about the interaction relationship of the piece with its setting. For christ sakes the clue is in the name 'Installation'.

So I'm for all people liking or disliking any art. But I don't see the point of even bothering, if someone refuses to inform themselves in any way shape of form about the artist's motivation. You don't have to do a 3 year art degree at Goldsmiths, like I've done. What would be the point of an artist creating a work only to appreciated by such a select group? He/she wants to get people in general 'thinking' about all sorts of stuff to do with art/culture/the media age/life/death/architecture/society/our personal subjectivities, and a hundred other things.

Personally I love much of the recent often conceptually based art because it makes me 'think'. Think about things and relationships that may not have occurred to me. Creatively playing with my mind is really exciting and interesting way. I love 'thinking' creatively with ideas, through looking at Art. That just doesn't float some people's boat, I know. Fine - no problem.

>>Now I have no objection to people disliking/sneering or whatever at more recent postmodernist style art. But I do if they can't even be bothered to inform themselves minimally of any conceptual reasons behind the making thereof



What I've been trying to say, as politely as I've been able.

Or as Dylan sang/said/groaned:

Don't criticise what you don't understand.

>>That just doesn't float some people's boat,

That's OK. They can always disassemble it and use the wood to make a shed...and exhibit the shed in a gallery.

(Semi-obscure conceptual art reference)

I think this is a good place to post this:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/nov/05/conscience-conflict-british-artists-spanish-civil-war-review