# They Tell Me This Is Art. Really?



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RBC is pleased to present the 15 RBC Canadian Painting Competition finalists, celebrate their work and the Competition’s 10th Anniversary.

With the patronage of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, and with the support of the Canadian Art Foundation, the Competition offers us all an opportunity to encourage emerging Canadian talent and highlight promising painters’ contributions to our society’s cultural vitality.

Discover the next great Canadian collectibles.

2008 RBC Painting Competition

Here is a stunning example of why I have no issues with cutting funding to the arts. 

I guess compared to the three stripped piece of crap below that taxpayers forked out $1.8 million for, they are slightly better. 

I mean circles, squares, splatters and a misshapen TV set have it all over three stripes, don't you think?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC..

You're just not "cultured" enough to see the deeper meaning of 12 large colored circles surrounding 12 smaller circles of multiple color. Its deep man... really deep. :love2: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Since these examples obviously fail your rigorous test, Sinc, perhaps you could graciously take the time to show we Philistines what the acceptable standards for "correct art" are.

Good luck, my friend.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I'm not one to judge what is and isn't art but I do have one observation on these...

If I had done these pieces in any art class during my education (not arts, just public and secondary school), I would have been given failing marks for lack of effort.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

"Every picture tells a story." And these examples of art are no different. The key is discovering the story. I am grateful to have learned these facts from my friend, Max.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

It's the nature of art to make us question "what is art?"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macified said:


> I'm not one to judge what is and isn't art but I do have one observation on these...
> 
> If I had done these pieces in any art class during my education (not arts, just public and secondary school), I would have been given failing marks for lack of effort.


:clap: :clap:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macified: if you really believe that your art teacher would have failed you, I have to say that you likely had the great misfortune of being dealt some pretty uninspiring art education- at a critical time of your life, too. My condolences to you.

If there's any consolation possible here, it's the thought that you are most certainly not alone.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal: great answer. Very _snatch the pebble from my hand, grasshopper._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max and Sonal: I think it's time for you to leave the Shaolin Monastery. Watch the rice paper carpets on the way out, will ya?


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Max said:


> Macified: if you really believe that your art teacher would have failed you, I have to say that you likely had the great misfortune of being dealt some pretty uninspiring art education- at a critical time of your life, too. My condolences to you.
> 
> If there's any consolation possible here, it's the thought that you are most certainly not alone.


Boy did you ever nail that one. I *was* dealt a pretty uninspiring art education. With the exception of maybe grade 5 (I'm digging way back here) I can honestly say that my teachers only inspired me to believe that art and art class were entirely a waste of time. Same applies to music (being an art). 

Your condolences are greatly appreciated.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My wife volunteered to teach some art classes for primary students in the area, and played a series of musical pieces, instructing the students to interpret the music visually. The butthole elementary school teacher went around to the students later and criticized their pieces telling them that they hadn't done a good enough job making a tree look like a tree.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I tend to have a similar reaction to this












> Consider, for example, the $30 million aid package offered to professional hockey franchises


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I tend to have a similar reaction to this


Surprisingly, I too always wonder about those little blue squares with question marks in them.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Sonal said:


> It's the nature of art to make us question "WTH *is* that?"


Fixed that up a bit.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I tend to have a similar reaction to this












> Consider, for example, the $30 million aid package offered to professional hockey franchises


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Both the art and hockey subsidies need to go.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I hear desert islands ARE rather monotonous.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is that a depiction of the Saran Wrap Cristo onceused to decorate a forsaken stretch of shoreline? Or are we back to trying to prove that the world is nothing without government subsidy?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Logical progression to MF utopia..nothing new.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

What you see is Art.
Art is what you see.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> To me this art clearly shows just how out of touch the educational establishments and instructors are. What is taught in school no bearing on what works in the real world.


I'm curious. What kind of art works in that hoary old cliché, 'the real world?'


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

My art classes were a little more structured, we would learn a movement and then try and create a piece to fit that movement. So if I had submitted one of these while learning about the renaissance then sure I would get a failing grade. But had I submitted something like this while learning about more modern art, then I don't think so. 

I don't remember any art classes where I was given a blank sheet of paper and was told to create without any direction. What better way to turn children/teenagers off of art!

Personally I don't see the issue of this being art or not (it obviously is), just should tax dollars go to funding the creation of these?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Too narrow and pat a definition.

The Soviet politburo fostered a style of art a little after the turn of the century... a kind of public art which glorified the state and the workers alike. Lots of heroic sculpture, lots of painting, tons and tons of public posters. Some of it was technically very good indeed but thematically it was all dictated by the state. The people who executed the actual work were able to put bread on their tables. The Soviets themselves profited from all of the joyously simplistic, wonderfully distilled, gloriously positive depictions of life under the wise, benevolent commissars. Complete with inspirational slogans!

Was it art or propaganda? You decide. After all, someone got paid and someone profited.

Earlier, in the first heady years of the revolution, there were some genuinely inspired artistic statements... extremely bold, imaginative and forward thinking. It was all quashed once the state apparatus was in place and the machinery of fascist rule was up to to full steam. No time then for maverick artists and thorny, independent-minded intellectual sorts... off to the gulag for these miscreants! Then the new red motherland introduced her idea of glorious art - one by the people, for the people, serving the people... serving the state.

Your Vancouver art example... you state that the artists were paid for what you evidently view as highly dubious accomplishments. By your own definition, it seems they created art... yet you don't really believe that it's art, though.. more like a strange, targeted form of welfare, I'm guessing.

Time for you to rustle up another definition, perhaps? One less steeped in cynicism might be a start.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You know Max, to be fair, I guess art can be boiled down to what you as an individual appreciate.

If you appreciated the examples I submitted, that's your view of art.

It certainly isn't mine.

I find art in the oddest places and none of it is celebrated or funded by the Governor General or the RBC.

I find art in a gnarled tree stood alone against a prairie sky.

I find art in the winds blowing a ripened field of grain in waves not unlike those of the ocean.

I find art through the lens of my camera in the dilapidated remnants of what were once homes and shelter for livestock and storage for grain.

I find art in the fine lines of my 1949 vintage automobile.

I find art in the rope grooves worn deep in the saddle that still hangs on the back wall of my garage.

I find art in the back country of this huge land that I explore in our motor home.

I find art in the clarity of a starry night on a remote, unlit part of the prairie where no artificial light spoils the moment.

I find art in the lines of the face of an octogenarian still living on his own in the wilds of northern Alberta.

I find art in the haunting bugle of the Elk during the rut at this time of year.

I find art in the bonfire as it burns down to its glowing end during an evening of conversation with good friends.

I find art in the colours of the fall season from a lonely hilltop.

I find art in the retro cartoons of Woody Woodpecker, Foghorn Leghorn and Henry the Chicken Hawk.

But I sure as hell find no art in three giant stripes we paid nearly $2 million bucks for to hang in our national art museum.

I sometimes wonder if they could use a rope grooved saddle?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I find art in many of your examples, Sinc. Shame that you personally can't find much art in what's in our museums. Well, I wager neither of us is going to lose any sleep over that, yes?

One of the many problems with defining art is that if you go all-inclusive (as your many examples might well suggest), then there's also the potential for a strange paradox. If anything and everything is art, then nothing in particular is art. Chew on that for awhile - a great many brilliant minds have, over many an age; alas, nothing conclusive has arisen thus far. A bit like trying to grab a gob of quicksilver with your fingers.

I don't mind that you don't find three giant stripes artistic. I'm good with that. In fact, I'm glad you don't like it. It helps keep controversy alive.

These days I find discussions about art to have strange parallels with discussions about economics. There's a certain tricky mysticism/faith vibe that you have to navigate past... you know, smoke and mirrors.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You know Max, as far apart as people might think our views run, it would be my great pleasure one eve to sit down with you over more than a few good pints of cheer and try to figure out how we each think.

While some might expect it to be a meeting of opposing minds, I would be more willing to wager we might find more common ground that either of us expect.

Ciao!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> But I sure as hell find no art in three giant stripes we paid nearly $2 million bucks for to hang in our national art museum.


See, that's actually three issues.

1) Is it art?
2) Is it worth $2 million bucks?
3) Does it deserve to hang in the national museum?

The discussion of what is and isn't art--whether you appreciate the art work or not--gets far more complicated when you try to attach financial value or officially sanctioned value to it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> See, that's actually three issues.
> 
> 1) Is it art?
> 2) Is it worth $2 million bucks?
> ...


That might very well be Sonal, but all three questions raised have the same answer. 

NO!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I am surprised to see SINC and MF so down on the examples of art provided -- surely this is the MOST pure expression of capitalism to be found??

An object -- any object -- is worth only what you can convince people that it is worth. Why should a lump of shiny yellow metal -- hardly fit to even make anything useful out of -- be valuable? Why is an old comic book, the content of which is easily reprintable, be of worth?

Why is a painting of a Campbell Soup can, every detail accurate, a masterpiece, but a photograph of a Campbell Soup can worthless?

If you really believe in the free market, you should be an ardent SUPPORTER of the concept of modern art, not a critic!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I am surprised to see SINC and MF so down on the examples of art provided -- surely this is the MOST pure expression of capitalism to be found??...
> If you really believe in the free market, you should be an ardent SUPPORTER of the concept of modern art, not a critic!


I have no problem with art or modern art. I don't recall even critiquing those pieces. I just don't believe that government should purchase art for galleries. My house is filled with art, much of it original and much of it modern--purchased by me a "SUPPORTER of the concept of modern art."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I keep driving past Max's house, but one day I'll throw rocks at his window and force him to come out and have a pint. Soften him up for you a
little.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MazterCBlazter said:


> To me this art clearly shows just how out of touch the educational establishments and instructors are. What is taught in school no bearing on what works in the real world.


That's an overly simplified statement. Are you referring to K to 12 or post-secondary?

What do you believe is being taught in school that doesn't "work" in the real world?

When I took art in school many years ago, it touched on topics like perspective, human anatomy, exploring the golden ratio, colour, contrast, positive/negative space--even cartooning. It also included drawing (pencil, ink, charcoal), painting, printing (silkscreen, woodcut, and relief), jewelry making, and sculpting.

These are basic and quite frankly essential for anyone interested in becoming an "artist". What you do after that is really up to you.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> When I took art in school many years ago, it touched on topics like perspective, human anatomy, exploring the golden ratio, colour, contrast, positive/negative space--even cartooning. It also included drawing (pencil, ink, charcoal), painting, printing (silkscreen, woodcut, and relief), jewelry making, and sculpting.


I concur with MannyP on this. Art classes, art appreciation, theatre and movement, photography and graphic design taught me skills that I call upon every single day. More importantly, it taught me how to look at the world through different lenses.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I think that the issue of what art is and government's role in funding it are two completely separate issues. The funding one we are never all going to agree on, because it goes to broader issues of government vs the free market's role related to areas of endeavour that have difficulty being self sustaining. 

The "average person" ie, not an art school grad often has difficulty with modern art. This is partly because ever since photography was invented, art has become increasingly reductive and abstract. It was no longer necessary to paint an incredibly realistic portrait because you could do it with a camera. Photography changed everything.

One can certainly critic ize modern art on the basis of pure taste or preference-this is the outraged, how can that be art, my sister could do that position. What is more challenging (and more enriching) is to understand how the language of art has changed over the past 200 years or so, and to understand what the artist is trying to say, or do, or accomplish.

SINC had a list of places where he "finds art". I can really see how many of those things would provide inspiration for art making, but they are not art on their own. Waves of grain in the sunset are Beauty-or Harmony-or Flow--but using them to create art requires an art-ist. A human. 

Pure opinion from Victoria BC

michael


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> SINC had a list of places where he "finds art". I can really see how many of those things would provide inspiration for art making, but they are not art on their own. Waves of grain in the sunset are Beauty-or Harmony-or Flow--but using them to create art requires an art-ist. A human.
> 
> Pure opinion from Victoria BC
> 
> michael


Since it is my brain that "processes" what I see into art, I stand by my statements of finding art. This human is intimately involved and certainly not an art-ist.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Since it is my brain that "processes" what I see into art, I stand by my statements of finding art. This human is intimately involved and certainly not an art-ist.


 Actually, I agree with you. I think that the "art part" is in the vision-how you see and process the material to provide meaning and significance. The rest is technique-not to minimize the importance of technical skills, but they are nonetheless skills. The technical skills allow you to communicate the "art part" to the world at large.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So it would seem to follow that art is what a person's brain "sees and processes" and while I can process the art in some things I see, I am handicapped in that I cannot process the "art" in the samples I posted.

My brain simply sees them as childish and unskilled attempts at art.

Different strokes for different folks certainly applies here.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> So it would seem to follow that art is what a person's brain "sees and processes" and while I can process the art in some things I see, I am handicapped in that I cannot process the "art" in the samples I posted.
> 
> My brain simply sees them as childish and unskilled attempts at art.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks certainly applies here.


I can understand why you would question the artistic merit of something like a canvas of black paint haphazardly applied to a canvas. I get it. And to a point, I agree.










I don't believe a skilled artist is required to make this. I could paint it. You could paint it. My 3 year-old son could paint it. There's nothing overly "special" about it yet, I'm attracted to it with how the light interacts with it... the texture, etc. Does it have any meaning? Who knows. But oddly enough it invokes a reponse (positive or negative).

Some people don't consider cartooning as an art-form. They consider it child's play yet it's can be one of the most difficult styles to master. Some of the most celebrated artists cartooned: Picasso, Doré, Kley, Degas, to name a few. The next time you're at a bookstore, take a look at "Draw the Looney Tunes"; it's an amazing book and offers an over-the-should peek at how Warner Bros. artists draw one of the most iconic cartoon characters ever made.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Andy Warhol cornered the market on Campbell's Soup and beat it to death, methinks. :lmao: 


chas_m said:


> I am surprised to see SINC and MF so down on the examples of art provided -- surely this is the MOST pure expression of capitalism to be found??
> 
> An object -- any object -- is worth only what you can convince people that it is worth. Why should a lump of shiny yellow metal -- hardly fit to even make anything useful out of -- be valuable? Why is an old comic book, the content of which is easily reprintable, be of worth?
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc:

It would not surprise me if, were we to meet for a pint one day, we would have plenty in common. doubtless we could discuss art for quite a long time indeed without getting frustrated or exhausting said topic. I suspect much the same of that churlish reprobate MacFury, but first he must stop lobbing rocks at my house. That, and he's gotta pony up for the gigantic Lexan shield I am obliged to install.

The other thing is that, whether you like stripes and splatters or not, they are indeed investments with proven market values. I rather doubt the National Gallery stands to lose millions in purchases of bad art. Of course, whether or not you approve of public funding for these acquisitions is another matter entirely. Personally, I support the notion. Then again, I'm a painter too. What can I say?


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> So it would seem to follow that art is what a person's brain "sees and processes" and while I can process the art in some things I see, I am handicapped in that I cannot process the "art" in the samples I posted.
> 
> My brain simply sees them as childish and unskilled attempts at art.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks certainly applies here.


The samples you posted are some else's artistic statement-they reflect their attempt to communicate something about themselves, the world, color, shape...surface texture...who knows? As a receiver of this communication, you get to say whether or not it works for you....and that's all well and good.

Like other art forms (literature, theater, dance, opera) greater understanding of what is being attempted can increase overall appreciation. But it's totally up to each person how much effort they want to expend. My wife sees movies as pure entertainment-doesn't want to work at figuring out what they mean, etc. I on the other hand have a deep appreciation for both pure entertainment and "deeper" stuff.

All I try to do is understand what the artist was trying to do, before passing judgment. I don't always succeed for sure....some of the conceptual things make no sense to me at all...dead cats nailed to trees, etc.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

I was on a school trip to the gallery when another student said, with disdain, about a piece, "I could have painted that".

Our teacher replied, "But you didn't".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If a drunk vomits onto a piece of canvas by mistake, it's vomit. 

If an artist vomits onto a canvas and says he did it on purpose, it's art.

If another artist comes along and finds the drunk's canvas, he might still claim it was "found art."

So everything is art, as long as someone says it is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SoyMac said:


> I was on a school trip to the gallery when another student said, with disdain, about a piece, "I could have painted that".
> 
> Our teacher replied, "But you didn't".


When faced with a similar comment, I went out and painted some.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But was it art? Or merely shallow, slavish imitation?

LOL


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MannyP Design said:


> I don't believe a skilled artist is required to make this. I could paint it. You could paint it. My 3 year-old son could paint it. There's nothing overly "special" about it yet, I'm attracted to it with how the light interacts with it... the texture, etc. Does it have any meaning? Who knows. But oddly enough it invokes a reponse (positive or negative).


Wouldn't it require at least a basic grasp of technique to ensure that the paint won't start cracking, chipping and peeling within a matter of months?

In any case, I find it extremely hard to comment on art when seen only in a small Web thumbnail. Most pieces really need to be seen in person to be appreciated (or dismissed).

Andy Warhol provides plenty of cases in point. His celebrity portraits seem like childsplay that any fool can reproduce in Photoshop -- until you actually see them up close, and their uniqueness and artistic accomplishment become obvious. (They have a sense of depth that isn't captured even in full-size poster reproductions.) Brillo boxes, Campbell's soup cans -- same deal.

A typical Vik Muniz piece seems like a whimsical trifle when viewed small. And yet in exhibition, the incredible talent and imagination behind them becomes blazingly obvious.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

OK, I have been waiting some time to wade into this but here it goes.

First as to what is and isn't art. Art is a societal construct and so if a group within society agree that something, anything constitutes being called art then art it is. Everyone is entitled to disagree with the assessment, but once it has been agreed upon to be so by some people then it is art. Now you can say it is bad art, but it has entered into culture (perhaps a sub culture) as art. It is a very true statement that there is no accounting for taste. If people like something, they like it and see it for whatever reason as being good. Others may and will disagree, based on their own personal biases, but their judgement of something being bad does not negate the first value judgement, it simply is added to the "list" of opinions. A universal standard does not exist for taste and what is good or bad.

Regarding the Barnett Newman painting "Voice of Fire". It is unquestionably art because it has been societally attributed as being so and Barnett Newman was also societally attributed as an artist and in fact a great artist who practised what historically became know as abstract expressionism and in his case in particular a forerunner of "color field" painting. 

As I said previously you may not like the work, but your distaste for it does not invalidate it as art; society has determined it to be so, your opinion simply is an expression of your evaluation of it, but does not constitute a revocation of its classification as being art. It also has entered into our collective history as being art and as such no individual's assessment can reverse the appellation.

Now, for why it was worth $1.8 million dollars. It is part of the mandate of the National Gallery of Canada to collect work that is from significant art historical periods and of artists that are representative of those periods. The gallery had some examples of abstract expressionism, but relatively few of colour field painting and none of Barnett Newman. Barnett Newman did not have a prodigious output and so his works are relatively rare and even more rarely do they come up for sale on the open market. Consequently when the painting Voice of Fire became available for acquisition by the NGC, they jumped on the chance to fill the hole in their collection. That $1.8 million was the price that had to be paid to secure its acquisition is proof that it was "worth" the money.

As chas_m has already pointed out, in a freemarket economy things are only "worth" what people are willing to pay for them. That $1.8 million had to be paid to acquire the painting means that is what the painting is worth at minimum from this point forward.

Being that the painting is now owned by the people of Canada, it will never again go up for sale, but if it were you can be guaranteed that it would sell for much more than the $1.8 million for which it was purchased. That is the nature of the "rarefied" art world. It may not be one you appreciate, but that IS the way it is.

So while you may not like the painting, Canada received good value for it's dollar and the National Gallery was doing its job by buying the painting at the price they did in order to acquire it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMatt: My biggest art shock was seeing in person how SMALL the Mona Lisa was. You do have to see the pieces in person to judge their artistic value.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

screature said:


> OK, I have been waiting some time to wade into this but here it goes...


Screature, perfect, thank you - I agree 100%.



Macfury said:


> iMatt: My biggest art shock was seeing in person how SMALL the Mona Lisa was.


I too was rather surprised when I saw it in person - I was expecting an imposing 3' x 4' work, when in fact the Mona Lisa is less than 2' x 3'. Still, it was impressive and I felt privileged to get relatively close to it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The inverse is interesting, too. Anyone ever see Picasso's _Guernica?_ I had been expecting something much smaller than was the case. Knocked me for a loop.

It's true that the best colour plates in the best coffee table books on art will not prepare you for seeing the real deal. Which makes judging art via its third-hand representation on the net an even dodgier proposition.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, the first three pictures I understand, but not the last one. Still, Sonal's existential view is accurate, in my opinion.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

When I lived in Fredericton, one of the first pieces of art I had ever seen as a child was "Santiago El Grande" by Salvadore Dali. It is an immense piece at 10 x 13 feet in size.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'd heard a lot about how the Mona Lisa was small, so that did not throw me... 

But I was amazed at how many people skipped over everything else in that room to look at the Mona Lisa. If I remember correctly, Gericault's _Raft of the Medusa_ is in the same room, and got hardly a glance from the other people in the room.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Shouldn't be all that surprising, given how tourists tend to have a hitlist of spots/sights they want to take in before they have to hop back on the plane. Think of it as a form of cultural triage.

The other factor to take into account is what I call retinal exhaustion. I get this in museums and art galleries all the time - too much gazing at art, however mesmerizing, masterful or beautiful, is exhausting and after awhile, if you don't take a break from all that intake, you don't really register anything at all.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> The inverse is interesting, too. Anyone ever see Picasso's _Guernica?_ I had been expecting something much smaller than was the case. Knocked me for a loop.


Max, Picasso's Guernica is a tour de force, one of the most, if not the most powerful painting of Modern Art, a true Masterpiece. Partly because of it's virtuosity and partly because of the historical context surrounding its creation. It really must be experienced "in the flesh" to be appreciated.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed, screature. Blew me away, back in 1981 or so, when it was on loan and on display at the MOMA, if memory serves. Astounding work. Of all the stuff I saw when I was at school down there, that painting is the most resonant. Made me think big - big themes, and a scale commensurate with one's own body. Gawd, I'd paint on that scale full time myself, if storage and selling such monsters weren't such an issue.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

The Arts are sadly neglected in the education system. If they were given the (proper) attention, the same attention we give the other basic education needs (language, math, science, geography) - this would be a completely different discussion. Nobody thinks it is acceptable to treat reading, writing, and math skills as 'elective' or 'fun' subjects, but our education system continually accepts the Arts as non-essential, extra-curricular activities. 
Art(s) are the primary indicator of culture and society. Visual arts, written arts, performing arts. They define cultures.

As for the Voice Of Fire painting, or any painting/ art work, the painting is an artifact. It is no different than any other artifact or document of history. To understand it, it needs to placed in context- its social, historical, and political context. The bonus is, you can also look at the artifact as pure object, and apply it to other contexts, contexts not thought of at the time they were produced, either by the artist or society.

Voice Of Fire is particularly appropriate to Canada. It was commissioned by the US, for the US pavilion at Expo '67. 

Hockey was mentioned earlier in this thread. If Barnett Newman were in the Art equivalent of the Hockey Hall Of Fame (and I believe he would make it in), he would probably not have thge same profile as a Gretzky or Howe or Lemieux. I suspect he would be inducted more as a Builder or Manager.

Making art for the purpose of illustrating one's talent to be a draughtsman gets very boring very quickly. Some of the artists who make the most abstract and conceptual works are also some of the most proficient draughtsman.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

fellfromtree said:


> Some of the artists who make the most abstract and conceptual works are also some of the most proficient draughtsman.


There's something to that... that old saw about before breaking the rules, one must first study the rules and work within their framework.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

And yet, beautiful draftsmanship often gets maligned because "Well, you could just take a photo". Can't win if you are abstract, can't win if you are realist. Artists have a tough crowd.

A good friend of mine is a realist painter--hope no one minds a plug.
Noah Layne


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Sonal said:


> And yet, beautiful draftsmanship often gets maligned because "Well, you could just take a photo".


You can be a great draughtsman, but that does not necessarily make you a great (or even good) artist. Technical ability is only one aspect of (the) art. It gets 'maligned' when it is just illustrating technical ability.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good explanation, fell. I often think of this when I hear technical wizardry in guitar players... it's always impressive but all too often it is also devoid of soul. Give me an emotive, spirit-stirring work any day over technical dazzle.

Sonal: I've nothing against so-called "realism" (a misnomer if ever there was one - about as real as 'reality tv')... I've a friend in the hood, a fellow I met nearly 3 decades ago now, who's extremely good at depicting nature scenes and who's earned his chops by going out into the country and painting what he sees, season after season, year after year. Great naturalist painter. He thinks he's doing realism, too. We've argued good-naturedly about it and neither of us has managed to convince each other on the superiority of our respective positions. So it goes.

I do agree with your assessment that artists often have a tough crowd. But I draw the line at saying 'boo hoo.' No one likes a whiner!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I was privileged to live a short car trip away from the Dali Museum, which I regularly enjoyed, and thus got to see a lot of his work over time. Brilliant beyond words, most of it, and of course a great showman for his stuff as well.

The recent Ken Burns documentary on Frank Lloyd Wright is a good way to experience the "emotion" of architechture if you can't actually visit one of his many masterpieces yourself (we went to Fallingwater on an extraordinary fall day about a year ago on our way up here, and saw many more examples in Columbus OH and Oak Park (Chicago) IL, including his studio).

Everyone here is familiar with Wright's work, I trust, but we sometimes forget some of the "little artworks" he made in the process of designing those amazing buildings:


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> I do agree with your assessment that artists often have a tough crowd. But I draw the line at saying 'boo hoo.' No one likes a whiner!


Well you know, if it was easy, everyone would make a living doing it. 

Seriously, I've always felt that to try to make money from art is a brave choice.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I like stories about Frank Lloyd Wright...to POOP ON!

Actually, I really like his work, large and small. He was a real S.O.B. but brilliant. They're doing a really nice resto on one of his buildings in Buffalo, NY. We had our front door custom built with nine panes of Frank Lloyd Wright glass salvaged from a building demolition.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF: cool tidbit about the glass.

Some of the most capable artists have been ornery SOB's. So it goes. It's not necessarily a prerequisite for the gig (just like being a looney tunes isn't a prerequisite) - but let's face it, it certainly gets the most public attention.

Gotta split - I have an ear to lop off.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Guernica: Two things:
There's a famous story of an SS officer in Picasso's studio who saw Guernica and asked him, "did you do that"? Picasso's answer was, "no you did".

Guernica is an interesting element to this discussion, because apart from its message and its virtuosity as a painting, it is the culmination of Picasso's creation of a totally new visual language-he was combining elements from children's painting, cubism, and other things in very new ways. Guernica is the essential modern art piece, in many ways.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Sonal said:


> And yet, beautiful draftsmanship often gets maligned because "Well, you could just take a photo". Can't win if you are abstract, can't win if you are realist. Artists have a tough crowd.
> 
> A good friend of mine is a realist painter--hope no one minds a plug.
> Noah Layne


I know Noah, and have spent many hours in life drawing with him. He's a very good guy.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

mc3251 said:


> I know Noah, and have spent many hours in life drawing with him. He's a very good guy.


No way! What a small world.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I've made art and sold my art. I don't know if it was "Art", "art" or even art. I think the question has ceased to matter much for the last 4 decades or so. If a piece of work is done with passion, energy, intelligence and originality it usually shows and a critical mass of people will call it art or Art ... or not. As someone who puts "artist" on his tax return, I don't really care.

I've never liked the cold colour field school of painting that Barnett Newman was one of the founders of, but I've always loved a quote that is attributed to him. It goes something like: "Aesthetics is for artists as ornithology is for birds". 

I'm sure Newman didn't create Voice of Fire with the idea that it would one day be sold for $2 million dollars. He did it for reasons of his own and probably for reasons of exploring new ground that painters were finding in the 1960s. Fortunately for him, enough people were willing to pay him to do what he wanted to do.

I've never much liked conceptual art much either. But since I read about Piero Manzoni back in art school I've loved the twisted joke he played on the art world. He filled 90 tin cans with his own feces (although some now say it was only plaster), signed and numbered and labelled the cans as "Merda d'artista" in Italian and "Artist's Sh!t" in English. In recent years some of the low numbers in the series have sold for amounts in the $100,000 range.

Imagine what SINC would think if the National Gallery bought one of those.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Applesauce:
I like what you are saying, because it lines up with my own prejudices. I think that "Art" and all that goes with it has in many cases completely lost touch with the average person (who is usually the one to buy it). Color field painting and other forms of conceptual art leave many people confused and frustrated. For my part, while I understand much of it it often leaves me cold. What works for me artistically, and aesthetically, are those pieces where I can see and feel the artist's heart and soul in the work. It needs to move me in some way or it is just a head game. 
That said, my son is getting recognition for his conceptual art pieces, so I guess I can't be too critical, can I?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Imagine what SINC would think if the National Gallery bought one of those.


GA, I would think the same thing as I think about Voice of Fire, that being it is in no way art and certainly fails your test of "a piece of work is done with passion, energy, intelligence and originality".

It is little more than copying the Italian flag and changing the colours. The damn thing isn't worth 2 cents and even many local artists I have asked since starting this thread agree Voice of Fire is crap and a charade pulled on the National Gallery.

I stopped into the Visual Arts Studio in our city hall yesterday, pictured below, specifically to ask some of the artists who sell goods there about the painting.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Everyone is an expert. Seriously, you can find an artist who will take whatever position you want on these types of questions.
What angers people about the "fire" painting is the cost, I think...and the price paid for it is ok given it's value in the market. 
Certainly there are other questions about what role, if any, gov't should play in supporting, buying, displaying art in public galleries. I'm not going there. ;>)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> Everyone is an expert. Seriously, you can find an artist who will take whatever position you want on these types of questions.
> 
> Certainly there are other questions about what role, if any, gov't should play in supporting, buying, displaying art in public galleries. I'm not going there. ;>)


For the record, I didn't ask them a "leading question".

I simply asked them to give me their impression of Voice of Fire in the National Gallery. I treated it like a person in the street type question and asked it of both sellers and buyers to get a cross section of opinion.

Not one of them mentioned "price" either. But all of them did state in one form or another that it was not what they considered art. The term "tray and roller" came up twice. 

Nor did a single person I asked in the shoppers crowd defend the painting or it's price.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

SINC, I used to spend hours cruising in and out the galleries on Queen St, Toronto. Modern art is decidedly not my favourite art form but I could often see the passion and fire in a piece even if I didn't understand it. I would never call it crap simply because I didn't like a particular work.

IMO, Voice of Fire is crap. Tray and roller is an apt term. The only thing special about it is the outrageous price tag.

What saddens me is Canada is full to the brim with brilliant artists that get nowhere and who's talents go unrecognized and duly rewarded. Go down any artist street in any Canadian town or city and you will find a feast for the eyes. If we have a couple million to blow how about selecting several pieces, (known and unknown artists) from across our nation to represent our country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Voice of Fire was so expensive because other government-owned galleries were bidding up the price. Yeah...that sounds good!


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

With respect to modern art, there is a movement of artists who are decrying awards like the "Turner Prize" in the UK, which has rewarded some pretty strange conceptual pieces. They are called Stuckists. 
Check them out....
Untitled Document

While it is very sad that many fine artists don't get recognized, we must remember that they are in good company. Compare for example Van Gogh (who hardly sold a painting and was basically a pauper) with Picasso (one of the quintessential businessmen of art). 

Making good art is one thing. Marketing, selling and promoting is another.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> Making good art is one thing. Marketing, selling and promoting is another.


 I think that this is a profound statement. The artists I find difficult to listen to are those who wish their work to be treated exactly as the work of an artist who is marketing, selling and promoting--without doing any of the legwork themselves.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

mc3251 said:


> Making good art is one thing. Marketing, selling and promoting is another.


That is exactly my problem with "art". How many parts are talent and how much is hot air?

I fully realize this is my personal opinion. If I'm in the market for art I'll buy the talent. If I want air I'll go to Staples and buy a can of it.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I think that this is a profound statement. The artists I find difficult to listen to are those who wish their work to be treated exactly as the work of an artist who is marketing, selling and promoting--without doing any of the legwork themselves.


Appreciate being the recipient of one of your rare compliments :>)

I agree with the rest of your statement, MacFury. Many artists are really schizophrenic in this context...we want to be recognized and compensated for pursuing what we see as a "higher calling". Once someone achieves popular success, though, we call them a whore and a sell out.

It's not a religion for the average person...it is something they buy-a product. And being a product, market forces rule.

michael


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

adagio said:


> That is exactly my problem with "art". How many parts are talent and how much is hot air?
> 
> I fully realize this is my personal opinion. If I'm in the market for art I'll buy the talent. If I want air I'll go to Staples and buy a can of it.


Are you buying it for an investment? Or are you buying it to bring you joy? Two different reasons...two different decisions, I would submit.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Yes, there are two sides to art, aren't there. As a lover of art and an amateur artist it is the "joy" angle I was referring to. I have a difficult time coming to grips with the investment angle. I'm a down to earth person who isn't impressed with astronomical price tags just for the sake of being expensive. I adore art for art's sake, not it's value. That's just me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> Once someone achieves popular success, though, we call them a whore and a sell out.


I'm reminded of that Morrissey song: "We hate it when our friends become successful."


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

adagio said:


> Yes, there are two sides to art, aren't there. As a lover of art and an amateur artist it is the "joy" angle I was referring to. I have a difficult time coming to grips with the investment angle. I'm a down to earth person who isn't impressed with astronomical price tags just for the sake of being expensive. I adore art for art's sake, not it's value. That's just me.


I completely understand. What we need to remember though is that everyone doesn't approach this with the same degree of reverence. 

That said, there is so much hot air in the art market. The galleries (some anyway) are selling snob appeal. It's a little club of those who "understand Art". It is a very elitist view. You can join by buying one of their paintings-because after all they are the experts, right? 

I try to understand different art movements because I think that creative expression is one of the highest forms of human endeavour-and I find it very interesting how visual language has evolved over the years. I have no time for the art snobs or for gallery owners with overblown pricing and commissions that fundamentally rob the artist.

Rant over.

michael


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

One piece of original art we really like is smething we bought for a Toonie at a yard sale. Someone's Yugoslavian uncle had tried to render his vision of a Sergio Leone-style bandito in a very imressionistic style using only dark reds, burnt orange and black. The artist will never be recognized but I think it's really nice and represents a very particular artistic vision.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I've learned much about art and how people view it from this thread and I thank so many for wading in with their views.

Please don't misinterpret my view of art. I am not "down" on all art, nor am I down on arts funding entirely.

I just honestly have to question some of the things I see being done with taxpayer's money

All of this has helped me to improve my understanding and views of art and to perhaps change those views in some ways.

With one exception that is, "Voice of Fire". No one will ever convince me that it is any more than a roller and tray scam by the artist, who must be laughing all the way to the bank at gullible Canadians. Not to mention the stupidity of the buyers at the National Gallery.

I would much prefer Adagio's approach and buy the work of 10 talented Canadians instead, rather than that oversized piece of crap by a foreign "artist", a term I use loosely in his case.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Chacun à son goût.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> GA, I would think the same thing as I think about Voice of Fire, that being it is in no way art and certainly fails your test of "a piece of work is done with passion, energy, intelligence and originality".
> 
> It is little more than copying the Italian flag and changing the colours. The damn thing isn't worth 2 cents and even many local artists I have asked since starting this thread agree Voice of Fire is crap and a charade pulled on the National Gallery.
> 
> I stopped into the Visual Arts Studio in our city hall yesterday, pictured below, specifically to ask some of the artists who sell goods there about the painting.


I have no feeling about Barnett Newman's work or any similar works. I've seen some Newman's in person and they didn't impress me there either. Some people, who are fans of art theory, modern art history or similar subjects, find a value in those works that must be mainly conceptual, in my opinion. When Newman did most of those works he was in a vanguard of artists who were doing painting like that. In the minds of people who appreciate this history it gives Newman's work great value. Especially since Newman's work is fairly rare in the art market.

I don't hate the work, like you seem to, I don't have any particular feeling about it. But your statement that it is worth 2 cents is not correct, since the work definitely has a market value that is probably significantly greater than the $2 million originally paid. It was not a waste of money in that sense, unless the modern art market as a whole suddenly crashes, which I would think is not likely. It is no more a waste of money than if the National Gallery had bought $2 million worth of gold bullion and put them in a room somewhere.

I have a friend who collects old glass electrical insulators. When I first met him I was surprised to find out that he had a large and valuable collection. Some of these things were worth many thousands of dollars to other collectors. They are just hunks of cast glass that would represent a few pennies worth of material. But some of them are rare and were produced in small quantities by individual glass foundries around North America, so since a group of people started collecting them, they started to have a value. If the National Gallery bought a few of the more rare ones, that would not be a "waste" of money since their value would likely continue to grow, even though there isn't much that's very interesting about them. BTW, my friend was able to finance the purchase of his property by selling a part of his collection of hunks of old glass.

So as Sonal mentioned earlier in this thread, we are talking about different subjects and confusing art market value with the question of what is art - a question that people have argued about for centuries and no doubt will continue to do. 

You could get some cans of paint and rollers and pump out many thousands of colour field paintings like Voice of Fire, but I doubt whether you'd be able to sell many of them for much. I don't really see what the whole outrage thing is about here. It seems to be based on the mistaken idea that someone has pulled off some kind of fraud, but neither the artist nor the gallery that bought the work did.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't think Barnet Newman is a scam artist at all myself. He was a man of his time and his painterly pursuits were in keeping with his contemporaries. Precious few in the business of painting wake up and say to themselves: _I know what I'll do, I'll break out the rollers and make two million bucks hoodwinking the gullible masses!_ Those who would dump on Mr. Newman's abilities might try to do break out their own rollers and paint and give it a go. Let me know when you can sell one for even two grand. I will be very happy for you if you do.

Mr. Jimmy has it right - to each his own. But I'm glad you learned something in this thread, Sinc. Certainly I did. And I believe MF made a great point in citing that Smiths tune. Too, there exists much beauty in the world but much of it is undervalued - which is why MF can pay a toonie for something precious and unique.

This art thing is something which effortlessly resists being defined to the satisfaction of all people at all times, no matter how strenuous or impassioned the arguments may be; one might as well nail jello to the wall. But I enjoy the spectacle nonetheless, even if sometimes it's maddening to witness.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Half the fun at least is how hard it is to define.
Max: I agree completely...the different "schools" of art were trying to push "Art" forward-to progress and challenge and make something new. Sometimes a piece like the voice of fire is important because of its historical role. Since MF is citing Smiths, I would like to mention Sex Pistols specifically and Punk generally. Many folks would argue that whatever the enduring musical quality (or lack therof) in this music, it can not be denied that it gave modern rock a much needed shaking up. It's funny though how silly some of the work can seem long after the fact.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Point taken, Mc3251. And you needn't convince me of the artistic merit of punk, even if, decades afterward, I too find much of the outward appearance of all that revolt stuff outlandish and self-absorbed. The music still is pure - the best of it, anyway. And yes, it arrived at a great time to shake it loose amongst a bunch of rather stale conventions.

I also find it interesting that the history of warfare and the invasion of one country by another is full of tales wherein museums are raided for their artistic works... as national treasures, these are often among the first objects to be stolen and taken back to the invader's home as part of the spoils of war. Whatever difficulty people have with reconciling something as oddly singular as a bunch of stripes on canvas as being art, these objects can have a definite monetary value - not to mention their historical and cultural significance to the nation whose museum the work was in when it was plundered.

Not that I expect us to be invaded any time soon, but you never know. Nor do I expect that Newman's work would be the first one the invading hordes would be yanking from the museum walls.

Still, I wouldn't mind having a _Voice of Fire_ kicking around in my own collection... might be a nice retirement investment.

Great thread, though. Kudos to Sinc for kicking it off.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the question of "What is Art" takes on that harder edge when the money is taken out of the tax pool, specifically because we become complicit in defining it against our wishes. 

When the National Gallery buys something we don't like, we can say: "My money was used to buy that--and I don't consider it art!" This is a different reaction one might have from the neighbour buying something you don't like with his own paycheque and showing it you.

Max makes a good point, however. If some invader sacks Canada, we certainly don't want to make them even angrier when they go to loot the National Gallery and the quality just isn't there.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Absolutely nothing of any value in those museums of ours, gents? That's your honest stance?

My, my. How barren of mind ye be.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Instead of thinking of Voice Of Fire is a painting, a singular image, but in the contect of the National Gallery collection (or any collection) it is A) one example of Barnet Newman's total body of work B) one example of Art and art direction of that era. 

As I said earlier, the art piece is a document, an artifact. It is no different than any other artifact or document of history in any other type of archive or museum or library. It is one part of a representation of one part of an entire collection. 

How many people who have an outspoken opinion of Voice of Fire have actually seen the painting? How many have taken any time or effort to understand what the painting represents, within the collection? When you see this painting at the National, it will likely be in a room or area with several other works of the time period. The same goes for any art work from any time period by any artist.

Any National gallery/archive collects many different things. There is a budget for Canadian acquisitions, European, world, old, new etc. They don't just go shopping one day and pick up this and that on a whim.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I know, Mazter. I had to get my digs in just the same.

Bad art... it's just not our own country saddled with it. Kitsch is world-wide! Of course, the problem begins when you attempt to identify just what constitutes bad art. My idea of it is bound to clash with those of others. So it goes. Same goes for defining what art, (if any, mind you) is worth collecting with the taxpayer's money. After all, great artists have been subject to the same issues, defects and proclivities of the greater public... some of those wonderful Italian renaissance painters and sculptors and their furtive love of pre-pubescent boys... the artists who drink themselves silly and are notoriously cantankerous, anti-social types but who do wonderful work just the same. Welcome to the dirty, complicated world of artists, their patrons and their entourages. It ain't always a pretty sight. Even the ones who supposedly live clean can be misanthropic and difficult to deal with.

You can rarely tell any of that when you all you see a picture hanging in a museum and know nothing of the back stories. The disconnect can be profound.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I think the question of "What is Art" takes on that harder edge when the money is taken out of the tax pool, specifically because we become complicit in defining it against our wishes.


Not so. The National Gallery only buys works of art that have already been historically considered to be art and are representative of a particular period or artist. The Gallery does not "promote" any type of art or artist to be art or an artist. Soicety/history has already done that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fellfromtree said:


> When you see this painting at the National, it will likely be in a room or area with several other works of the time period. The same goes for any art work from any time period by any artist.
> 
> Any National gallery/archive collects many different things. There is a budget for Canadian acquisitions, European, world, old, new etc. They don't just go shopping one day and pick up this and that on a whim.


Um, ah, er, I guess you missed the first post in this thread with a picture of that piece of crap in it's very own room?

Looks very much like a one-time whim to me. How about you?

Here it is again, just for you. I guess you are still in that tree, are you?

And be sure to notice how many people are sitting on that bench in front, admiring it.  

Aw heck, forget it. They're all out cleaning the roller and tray.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

SINC said:


> Um, ah, er, I guess you missed the first post


err, I guess you missed the part of my post where I said the painting would likely be in a room OR AREA...

When I visited, to see the painting, it was in an area with works of a similar time/genre. In general, when you visit a museum or gallery, the works/artifacts are not just placed here, just as most people tend to keep related items in segregated settings in their home. Usually, in a standard three bedroom home layout, the bed is in a different room OR AREA than the fridge and stove.

I happen to like the painting. It is quintessentially American to me. Imperialist, bombastic. I also think it is well painted. Are there other works that could be better examples of the genre? Yes! But were they available? Would they ever be available? Were they available for less than 5,10,15 million dollars?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Not so. The National Gallery only buys works of art that have already been historically considered to be art and are representative of a particular period or artist. The Gallery does not "promote" any type of art or artist to be art or an artist. Soicety/history has already done that.


My point is that most people aren't really interested enough in The Voice of Fire to worry about whether it is art, or "acceptable" art--until it is purchased with public funds. If the piece is purchased privately, the question rarely arises.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> My point is that most people aren't really interested enough in The Voice of Fire to worry about whether it is art, or "acceptable" art--until it is purchased with pubic funds. If the piece is purchased privately, the question rarely arises.


Fair enough.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Here is an audio/video link to the (OP) RBC Painting Competition finalists artist statements. Most include visual references (studio or portfolio shots) that help flesh out the individual entries.

Painting Competiton | Arts | Canadian Entertainment, Pop Culture, TV, Movies and Music | National Post


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fellfromtree said:


> Here is an audio/video link to the (OP) RBC Painting Competition finalists artist statements. Most include visual references (studio or portfolio shots) that help flesh out the individual entries.
> 
> Painting Competiton | Arts | Canadian Entertainment, Pop Culture, TV, Movies and Music | National Post


Well, after watching those two videos, my whole perspective has changed, yet again.

I mean who wouldn't be enthralled by most of them using the work "like" to absolute friggin' death.

Makes one wonder, like, how many of them, like even, like went to, like some kind of like, school or like something?

Combine that with the guy who called one painting "maniac" five times and his other "masterpiece" "F*ck You" and the circle is complete.

Thanks for posting this bullsh!t which proves beyond belief that apparently RBC thinks this crap is art. You have certainly confirmed my suspicions that these are bottom feeders who produced what I originally questioned as art in the first place.

Unbelieveable.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

I'm curious to know SINC, what (if any) do you consider to be worthy examples of Canadian art (either cultural or monetarily, or whatever your parameters)?

For the record, I would be pleased if the National and the AGO (and the McMichael for that matter) divested of the reams of worthless Group Of Seven crap. They had a few good paintings, but enough is enough. Besides, it isn't even true Canadiana- they ripped-off of some original Finn painters.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

SINC said:


> Um, ah, er, I guess you missed the first post in this thread with a picture of that piece of crap in it's very own room?
> 
> Looks very much like a one-time whim to me. How about you?
> 
> ...


It didn't occur to me until just now but the artist has inversed the colours of the US Army's Distringuished Service Cross.....

War Ribbons Identification - United States Army

Personally I'm from the school of a 'picture is worth a thousand words' so if you need a thousand words to explain what the picture is about it just didn't quite work for me.....

Think I'll keep my nose out of the 'what is art' debate had that at Ryerson...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Niteshooter, all art has its antecedents. What goes around comes around. Long before the Nazis appropriated the swastika symbol for their own propaganda purposes, it was a strong symbol found in a cross-section of cultures spanning millennia. We can't look at it in our modern era without the symbol evoking images from the Second World War, but that dynamic pictogram also had a strong positive potency for other cultures well before it became infamously emblematic of Nazi Germany.

None of this stuff exists in a vacuum. It's all referencing other stuff. And it's true that the Group of Seven stuff (which I admire a great deal of, especially Tom Thomson's wonderful sense of colour) is echoing Northern European painting from several decades before the Canadian group made its mark. The ancient Romans were copping licks from the Greeks (hmmm, that came out wrong). 

Anyway, you get the idea.

But you're right; wading into the "what is art" debate is asking for a torrent of words with zero conclusions to tidy it all up. Much like this thread, natch.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

> the Group of Seven stuff is echoing Northern European painting


That is very polite and diplomatic, to say the least. I have no qualms with diplomacy regarding the Group Of Seven ( of which Thomson was not one).


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Niteshooter said:


> It didn't occur to me until just now but the artist has inversed the colours of the US Army's Distringuished Service Cross.....


Which just proves that sometimes ... maybe not in this case, but sometimes ... the meaning of a piece is not immediately obvious, nor meant to be. Sometimes ... again perhaps not in this case ... the meaning of a piece is intentionally subtle. Like a puzzle.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> I have no qualms with diplomacy regarding the Group Of Seven ( of which Thomson was not one).


Maybe not officially a member, Fell, but you get my drift. He remains synonomous with the group and for good reason. Still, you don't seem very impressed with the work these painters did. LOL! I am starting to suspect you are of Northern European descent.

Ah well. One finds art snobs everywhere. And those Norwegians, Swedes and Finns were also ripping off other artists... doubtless they called it "paying tribute to." More of that diplomacy you mentioned. Or perhaps they were in denial, like so many cultures can be when it comes to grandly claiming ownership of artistic trends. Perhaps they would rather have insisted that they simply plucked their painting ideas from out of that thin, frigid air... while on a bracing stroll skirting the knife-like edges of a fiord, natch.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Well, after watching those two videos, my whole perspective has changed, yet again.
> 
> I mean who wouldn't be enthralled by most of them using the work "like" to absolute friggin' death.
> 
> ...


I agree with your assessment of the of the painter Will Murray from Montreal and the "maniac paintings" I didn't like them at all. They looked like garbage, which I believe was his inspiration so from that point of view there was an internal logic, but not at all to my taste.

I also agree with your shock at the number of artists would seemed to be less than articulate in their ability to speak about their work (like, like, like...). When I went to art school at the University of Ottawa, a great deal of emphasis was placed on ones ability to articulate ones intentions and inspiration. Perhaps too much so, to the point of draining the experiential meaning from the work. In other words the artists talked so much about the work as to leave no room for the viewers interpretation and instinctive reaction to it. (See Susan Sontag's seminal work "Against Interpretation")

However, on the whole I must disagree with your comments that the work shown was crap. There was some very good work as well. Of particular note for me were the paintings by Martin Golland from Toronto. _Prism Burn, Backboard, Portal 07, and Main Brace_ all display outstanding use of colour, composition and technique. He was also quite capable of explaining succinctly (albeit in somewhat rudimentary terms) his intentions. That of taking banal subject matter and then transforming them through painting into something that actually provides a visceral experience. I think he will be one to watch.

There were others as well worthy of note, Drew Simpson's (Toronto) work showed great virtuosity of technique (I would think his technical ability would be something you could relate to SINC). 

Rick Leong (Montreal) again was technically of very high calibre, blending Asian and "European" traditions. 

Lorenzo Pepito's (Richmond) shoe boxes were an interesting and humorous take on modern culture's (and his own) obsession with shoes a la Andy Wahol, a bit derivative but well executed. 

Amanda Reeves's colourful circle painting were quite good, attractive and certainly would leave the viewer who looked at them for any length of time with a lasting (albeit short lived) impression as they would definitely induce the phenomenon known as an "after image" which is closely related to "persistence of vision", the phenomenon that allows film and video images to be seen as moving even though they are just a series of still images.

Jeremy Hoff's (Vancouver) multi-layer paintings that were then routed out to reveal the colours were interesting (particularly the radiating circular one), a bit more conceptual than I generally appreciate, but interesting none the less.

Sarah Jane Gorlitz (sp?) (Winnipeg/Toronto) use of colour and composition was very good, again I found it to be a bit derivative of David Hockney, but still noteworthy.

The others were not particularly bad in my opinion, just not to my taste.

On the contrary to your dismay that RBC is supporting/promoting these artists, I applaud them for doing so. If more corporate entities were to become involved in the arts it would take the strain off of the public purse for doing so. I don't believe in grants for artists beyond those who are in the formative years of their careers where it is very difficult to "get of the ground" (been there done that so I know). But once they have there should be no more public (Government) funding for "established" artists.

(As an aside I and a fellow graduate received an "Explorations Grant" from the Canada Council for a collaborative project, back in 1991. It was a small amount $10,000 between the two of us, but helped both our careers immensely. I nor he have ever since, nor wanted to apply for further funding.) 

Again you will not like everything artists do, (I sure don't), but I say good on ya RBC for taking this initiative.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

My problem with the Group Of Seven is not that they are not good, important, and all that other stuff. The problem is that Canada has leaned on them, almost to the exclusion of all else since, as the only thing mentionable and marketable in Canadian Art. I think it goes right back to the problem of not recognizing the Arts as a basic element of education and culture.

I heard a bit of a news report on radio yesterday, Harper cancelled the Nation Portrait Gallery project. Alberta was in for $40 million if it came to that province.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I can only applaud corporations for supporting the arts.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

fellfromtree said:


> Here is an audio/video link to the (OP) RBC Painting Competition finalists artist statements. Most include visual references (studio or portfolio shots) that help flesh out the individual entries.
> 
> Painting Competiton | Arts | Canadian Entertainment, Pop Culture, TV, Movies and Music | National Post


Thanks for posting that video. Much of the art was not to my taste, but I'm happy to see how committed young artists are to painting even a couple of decades after the conceptualist crowd declared it dead.

I particularly liked Patrick Horwitz's (not sure if I heard his name right) abstract work. Quite beautiful and well-crafted compositionally and from a colour standpoint.

Like screature, I really liked Martin Golland's work. My favourite type of painting is usually in the area where realism and abstraction collide and I loved how his painting while being realist, could also be seen as abstraction and certainly owed much to that.

I thought Amanda Reeves painting was pretty, from a decorative standpoint. I didn't need the fancy-schmancy artspeak about the picture plane to appreciate her paintings. They were quite beautiful.

I don't think there was too much evidence of the "like disease" in much of the statements from the artists compared to its prevalence among the young these days. I would suspect that those who were using it were speaking off the cuff, while those who used it less were speaking from notes. Unfortunately this particular speech crutch is used everywhere by young people and that has also infected the general culture to the point where it's hard to avoid hearing it. Get on any bus and you'll hear young people on their cell phones using like 3, 4 or 5 times per sentence. It's so pervasive that I've even caught myself using it when I'm, like, searching for words as I, like, speak and I'm far from being, you know, like, young. Bleeeeaaah!

But the like disease is only a current replacement for ummm and ahhhh. Generally as kids learn to express themselves they use it less.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

fellfromtree said:


> My problem with the Group Of Seven is not that they are not good, important, and all that other stuff. The problem is that Canada has leaned on them, almost to the exclusion of all else since, as the only thing mentionable and marketable in Canadian Art. I think it goes right back to the problem of not recognizing the Arts as a basic element of education and culture.
> 
> I heard a bit of a news report on radio yesterday, Harper cancelled the Nation Portrait Gallery project. Alberta was in for $40 million if it came to that province.



It's certainly not the fault of the Group of Seven legacy that it remains synonymous with Canadian art. I do agree that we undervalue the arts and in so doing pay the price for that cavalier attitude. That mistake goes a long way towards explaining why Canadians themselves often can't think of any famous Canadian artists beyond long dead landscape painters, plus the likes of Robert Bateman, Alex Coleville, Ken Danby and a modest clutch of others... more recently, Louise Noguchi and Atilla Richard Lukacs, perhaps. But there are many, many more.

We could do more to promote the arts and in so doing help raise public awareness of our own capable, accomplished practitioners. But there'd have to be a demonstrable public will to embrace just that. Alas, I'd argue the public doesn't sufficiently give a hoot. Ignorance is bliss and hence we Canadians get the kind of artistic profile we deserve. It's an excellent environment for pure Darwinian survival smarts, come to think of it - that's the silver lining. Perhaps it's just as well that the government doesn't get more into it... we'd probably end up branding bad art and make fools of ourselves on the international stage... at least, until we smartened up.

They're much better at getting behind the arts in Quebec... in English Canada it tends to be an unhappy gang of stiff, parochial interests with little interest in banding together to raise the profile of one and all. Nope, instead we get a bunch of tiny fiefdoms jealousy peering anxiously at one another, fretting that no one get too far ahead.

Reads like a farce, doesn't it? Best thing to do if one is artistically inclined is keep one's head down and keep working away. One must have faith in one's own vision. We need the permission of neither government nor society to do so.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> but I'm happy to see how committed young artists are to painting even a couple of decades after the conceptualist crowd declared it dead.


 One of the great traditions in modern (and I mean 19th century onwards) is that of schools declaring each other dead. The antidote to conceptual art may be found by googling Stuckism and looking at the manifestos...very articulate statements on why much of conceptual art is farcical and meaningless, and worse of all, sucks up funding that painters need ;>) 
As to articulating what your work is "about" I think that if one is going to be successful in the market the work must to some degree stand on its own. Explanations as to the use of the picture plane, pictorial space, composition, etc are generally much more of interest to art makers than to art buyers.

I agree with Max-end of the day just have to keep your head down, stay true to your vision, and keep working.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I know a successful artist who has simply withdrawn from explaining anything about his work, except in rare instances. He said that the constant exposition of why he was doing something--or even looking at people's comments on his work online--was actually damaging the work itself. He's happy to sell his work, but largely to people who already see value in it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Makes sense to me. A lot of people in the fine art arena seem to think their exhibits require a crisp sheaf of paper containing a jumble of precious, jargon-laden words to 'explain' their work to one and all.... it can get very pretentious and insular at times.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Reads like a farce, doesn't it? Best thing to do if one is artistically inclined is keep one's head down and keep working away. One must have faith in one's own vision. We need the permission of neither government nor society to do so.


I agree with this statement, all I want to do is create the things that I like and find interesting. When I was an art student I sucked in everything I could see to know what was going on and who was who; now I really could care less, well not quite but I certainly don't go to openings any more.

There is an irony here though. I feel my work is better now and I know my own tastes infinitely better as well, but I actually view way less art as I focus on my own work. 

It is true what you say that we do not need government nor society to grant us permission to do our work, but it will ultimately be society that determines if our work is considered to be art or not. Perhaps not in our life times, but it is society that decides.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's fine with me. Of course, if one is truly talented, it helps to have a sufficiently robust ego. There's nothing wrong with claiming to be an artist, so long as one actually has the chops and vision to back it up. It's pitiful to witness people who think they merely need claim ownership of artistry and expect showers of accolades in return.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The worst are the people who merely have "ideas" that they are willing to share with artists and writers who will act as the machinery for the realization of their genius. "If I tell you this idea, promise you won't steal it oK?"

Second worst: those crowing about an art "show" they have launched because they have sufficient cash to hand to a gallery that has no interest in what they're exhibiting. I would have some respect for them if they admitted they were merely renting the space, but there's always the implication that they were specially selected to exhibit their work.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Second worst: those crowing about an art "show" they have launched because they have sufficient cash to hand to a gallery that has no interest in what they're exhibiting. I would have some respect for them if they admitted they were merely renting the space, but there's always the implication that they were specially selected to exhibit their work.


I usually organize my own shows these days... rent the space on my own, design and distribute all the publicity materials, provide the booze and hors d'oeuvres at the opening. I'm up front about it. Doing this eliminates the middle man and as a result makes the work more affordable to more people. That or I go into restos and bistros... which has its ups and downs, but I won't get into it here.

The alternative is to slavishly flog my wares to various galleries and run the gauntlet of dealing with people who are inclined to judge whether or not I'm sufficiently current or provocative. Not much fun, and a job in and of itself. I have more control if I design a show from the ground up. I'd rather rent out an event space than pay to get into one of these 'rent-a-gallery' schemes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see a great advantage to renting, especially in places that do a little promoting as well. But I'm sure you don't boast that the gallery selected you either.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Nope. I'm a little more subtle than that. I just make it plain about what I'm doing. I do know people who act like the gallery chose them when it's widely known that it's one of those newfangled rent-a-galleries. ... it's a bit like the emperor's new clothes. It's much harder to get into curated place where they collect a stable of artists. Sometimes that's for good reason, too. Other times it's just weird politics. I find I have little time to play the game - it's exhausting. I'd rather paint in my studio than chase down the would-be players like some bleating sycophant.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*What would you rather see on a train or bus?*



MazterCBlazter said:


> That which provides employment and profit.
> 
> If you ever go on the public transit in Vancouver, you will see bizarre poetry and on the skytrain artwork, which was paid for by the underfunded transit authority. Most people when they read the poetry can't understand what the words mean.
> 
> But hey, the artists got paid for it.


I'd rather see artwork and poetry on a train or bus rather than advertisements.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I'd rather see artwork and poetry on a train or bus rather than advertisements.


And I would rather see the company's logo and the destination of the bus or train. Why clutter it up with one kind of stuff or another?

Besides, I drive by many buses a day and can't recall the name of one firm with an ad on the side. Too common and don't pay attention anymore. A poor ad investment to be sure.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Doesn't matter, Sinc. It works its way into your brain without your knowing it. Just as your noggin is also a storehouse for a grab-bag of jingles shilling everything from fast food to tires. They know that and that's why they plaster ads everywhere.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh the horror! It should a been hung horizontally. But hey, it’s abstract art and hard to tell . . .

*Art hung 'wrong way round' in exhibition:*

Two paintings by the artist Mark Rothko, famous for his bold stripes and squares, may have been hung the wrong way round by curators at a major gallery.

Rothko art hung 'wrong way round' in exhibition - Telegraph

Hey, it looks like a window to me, but I guess it was supposed to be an = sign was it?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh the horror! It should a been hung horizontally. But hey, it’s abstract art and hard to tell . . .
> 
> *Art hung 'wrong way round' in exhibition:*
> 
> ...


SINC, did you post this because you believe it's saying something important or are you 'just sayin'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> SINC, did you post this because you believe it's saying something important or are you 'just sayin'.


I posted it to demonstrate just how ridiculous interpretation really is.

As I added the picture to the original post, it looked like a window the way it was hung, but when you turn it, it is really an = sign. Who knew?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, I'm sorry but you're just revealing your ignorance here. Shame they messed up with the orientation of this painter's works... that's an incredible screwup, no doubt. But using Mark Rothko as an example of how "ridiculous interpretation really is...." yikes, man. You mean to say you're ready to take on a bold stance against _interpretation_ here?

Despite your obvious distaste for Rothko's work, the man holds a valid place in the pantheon of American abstract painting. As such, Rothko's position in American modernism is both huge and unequivocal. This guy's no fly by night _arriviste,_ Sinc. His work has been described by many as being intensely spiritual and has even decorated at least one architectural marvel of a chapel. Careful how you treat that realm of art, Sinc, as a great many prominent Americans are actually quite proud of their country's contribution to the arts in our modern era... strange as it may seem to you.

Let me ask you: have you ever seen any of the man's works in the flesh? Do you think that the internet does justice to most any specific instance of visual art, and that therefore you personally needn't bother yourself with wintessing the actual works themselves? Do you think it at all possible that Rothko's most famous pieces just might have some actual merit, beyond your glib, denigrating implication that it it's somehow inferior because it allegedly requires "interpretation?"

_Ay-yi-yi._

I suppose I should be glad you head up no appropriations committees for any prominent museums.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

My painting was printed upside down on my show invitation. I'm a big Rothko fan. I interpret his work as landscape, even though he considers it figurative.

If you read the article linked, the Tate has hung the paintings both vertically and horizontally. It was not a 'gaffe', it was a decision to hang them horizontally.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Let me ask you: have you ever seen any of the man's works in the flesh? Do you think that the internet does justice to most any specific instance of visual art, and that therefore you personally needn't bother yourself with wintessing the actual works themselves? Do you think it at all possible that Rothko's most famous pieces just might have some actual merit, beyond your glib, denigrating implication that it it's somehow inferior because it allegedly requires "interpretation?"


Instead, let me ask you Max, is it a window or is it a = sign?

_That's how I interpret the two presentations._ And as I understand it, that's what "art" is all about, isn't it?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> _That's how I interpret the two presentations._ And as I understand it, that's what "art" is all about, isn't it?


Well, not necessarily. 

Somewhere, I have essay on this, but effectively there are 4 categories of approaches to interpreting or appreciating art. There's a lot of intellectual debate as to which is better than which, but personally, I think all of them are important. 

1) The work in relation to the viewer. This is the "What does it say to you?" line of thinking.

2) The work in relation to its creator. In other words, "What is the artist trying to say?"

3) The work in relation to its context. This is looking at the work in relation to its place in art history, other artists, world history, its cultural context, etc.

4) The work in relation to itself. This is looking at the more technical criteria of the work itself, e.g., composition, colour, line, contrast, etc. 

When you look at a Rothko or something like Voice of Fire, it may not mean anything to you. That's only one way of looking at art. To approach the work from all aspects gives you a more complete view of the piece. You still may not like it. But you do see it more completely.

Now, when a gallery deliberately hangs a piece in the wrong way, they are experimenting with the viewer's response and with the technical aspects of the work (e.g., composition). The artists' intent does not change, the context does not change, but you have two fresh new ways of interacting with the work.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> It was not a 'gaffe', it was a decision to hang them horizontally.





> Now, when a gallery deliberately hangs a piece in the wrong way, they are experimenting with the viewer's response and with the technical aspects of the work (e.g., composition).


Ummm...yeah...sure..._<cough>_, _<cough>_

When curators get creative:


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Really...exactly when did it become OK for curators to decide to experiment like that? This is news to me. I think that artist empowerment should include deciding which way is up when hanging a pic.
..but hey, that's just me...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Don't talk about it, do it!

Jackson Pollock by Miltos Manetas, original design by Stamen, press any key to s

Perhaps post it afterwards.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh look, I did an art. 

Anyone want to buy it? 

No?

S'OK, I'll get a grant from the taxpayers, not to worry.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

SINC said:


> Anyone want to buy it?


A genuine SINC? You bet! How much?


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Re the Rothko paintings hung the wrong way. That was actually an interesting read. That the artist may have actually painted this work in various orientations is quite interesting though the signature may hold the key to the correct placement or not. What struck me is that the interpretation can be radically changed depending on it's placement and with it the response of the viewer and it sounds like perhaps the artist was also partly conflicted by this as well.

Our small screens don't really do his work justice since they are meant to be viewed at a specific distance (18") and these works are quite massive....

Just to put this in a bit more context, the OP's first image just doesn't turn my crank but with Rothko I think the added dimension of texture and blending of colours does. 

I quite like the colour sense in his work and it reminds me of a Newfound Artist's work, Sharon Puddister who's work I purchased back in the late 80's as it reminded me a lot of the colour pallet on some of the outport buildings I was photographing.

Granted I can see why this might not be everyone's cup of tea....

Kevin


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

SINC said:


> Oh look, I did an art.
> 
> Anyone want to buy it?
> 
> ...


Just make it BIG!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Any bids on an original framed kps? LOL


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Better yet, how about a genuine FeXL based on a genuine SINC?

Extracted from the white BG, added drop shadow, original layer deleted, added layer with radial gradient with green & purple, layers merged, layer duplicated, added Gaussian blur to top layer & layer blend mode set to Overlay, filters Fiber, Reticulation & Emboss added, layers merged, filters Extrude & Craquelure added, et voila!

Cheap for cash!

Well, cheap anyways...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Nice job on the SINC, FeXL! :clap:


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

SINC, can you explain the "story" behind your "art"? I'm sure if you dream up a whopper it will be worth millions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> A genuine SINC? You bet! How much?


Oh, lemme see, how's a couple of Kilkenny? Too rich? OK one'll do.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Better yet, how about a genuine FeXL based on a genuine SINC?
> 
> Extracted from the white BG, added drop shadow, original layer deleted, added layer with radial gradient with green & purple, layers merged, layer duplicated, added Gaussian blur to top layer & layer blend mode set to Overlay, filters Fiber, Reticulation & Emboss added, layers merged, filters Extrude & Craquelure added, et voila!
> 
> ...


This would make excellent casino carpeting.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Pollock:


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Where's *my* million???


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> Nice job on the SINC, FeXL! :clap:


Thx!  



SINC said:


> Oh, lemme see, how's a couple of Kilkenny? Too rich? OK one'll do.


Done! Next time we connect.



mrjimmy said:


> This would make excellent casino carpeting.


Like this?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But is it art?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Apparently.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

You know this whole discussion is rather interesting. The same thread could be held around the judgement of whether or not something was music, dance, etc. This will always be the case when the envelope is expanded for what is and isn't considered to be art. The Impressionists had to hold a Salon Refuse because they were not considered to be worthy to be exhibited in the Salon of the time. Look where they are now. However, Barnet Newman (Colour Field Painting and Abstract Expressionism) has been accepted as being an artist and his work as art for over fifty years now.

The whole issue that SYNC raises really only arises because Government (public) money was spent on the Voice of Fire. Now, I have already stated the reasons for why the money was well spent. But, another thing that can be said is that the controversy alone brought more visitors to the National Gallery to see it and then in turn see other art that they never would have seen (also revenues through entry fees) than had they not made the acquisition.

So, SYNC, I really think it is time to accept the fact that the boundaries of what is to be considered art will be forever expanding and just get used to it. It will be a lot less stressful for you in the long run. It will also allow you to spend your time and energy being indignant over Government spending that truly is wasteful. Such as mutli-million dollar "trade" junkets attended by heads of corporations and Ministers, top bureaucrats and their families all paid for on the public dollar, many times with highly questionable results, i.e. value for money, in terms of leads and contracts derived from the lavish spending.

This is public money that is truly flushed down the drain and spent on "garbage". At least with the "Voice of Fire" you have some *thing* for your money, an actual asset that you can enter in a line on a balance sheet and that will return a profit if it ever (which it won't be, but could be) were sold.

With many "trade" missions and their ilk, there is often nothing but red ink left after all is said and done.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed, screature. BTW, the Albertan gentleman's name is "Sinc."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> So, SYNC, I really think it is time to accept the fact that the boundaries of what is to be considered art will be forever expanding and just get used to it.
> 
> At least with the "Voice of Fire" you have some *thing* for your money, an actual asset that you can enter in a line on a balance sheet and that will return a profit if it ever (which it won't be, but could be) were sold.
> 
> With many "trade" missions and their ilk, there is often nothing but red ink left after all is said and done.


Oh, I can live with the ever changing debate of what is or isn't art. I can even live with all of it being defined as art.

What I won't give up though is my right to call a spade a spade and conversely bad art what it is, bad art. Voice of Fire stands alone as the worst of the bad.

Canadians "have" something of value you say? That might very well be according to some, but you yourself admit it will never be sold, thus it is worth nothing and is more of a drain on the federal reserve than any junket you pose as an example. At least with those, there is the hope, however slim of a return of some tiny kind by promoting products abroad.

With Voice of Fire, there is zero return and zero hope for any. Aside from it being done with a roller and tray.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I was in Paris in february and visited all the major (and some minor) galleries in the area.
One of which had on display 3 "minimalist" "paintings" by 3 separate "artists"

ALL 3, where blank white canvases with the EXACT same dimensions. 3 empty canvases that anyone could buy from any art store, side by side by side on display as ART.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Oh, I can live with the ever changing debate of what is or isn't art. I can even live with all of it being defined as art.
> 
> What I won't give up though is my right to call a spade a spade and conversely bad art what it is, bad art. Voice of Fire stands alone as the worst of the bad.
> 
> ...


My most humble apologies for misspelling SINC, SINC. Geesh, you think I would know how to spell it by now.  

Well we will have to agree to disagree, I can absolutely see the value in acquiring "Voice of Fire" even if it is never sold. It *could* be sold and at a profit, therefore it is in black ink (an asset) on a balance sheet. 

"Trade " junkets, not so much. The auditing is so convoluted that it is almost impossible to ever determine if the money was actually well spent (value for money).

I can't say how I know this because it is classified information (I'm not just blowing smoke here) i.e. the audit information that I am privy to through a contract that I worked on recently is classified. So you will have to trust me, but what I can say is that (as I am sure you are aware) there are absolutely far worse cases of "questionable" Government spending than "Voice of Fire". As I said at least with "Voice of Fire" you have an actual quantifiable *thing* that has a real value associated with it. It is a real asset, not money spent on a hope and a prayer, wining and dinning the elite of Canadian and International high society to potentially lubricate the wheels of trade.

I would take a "Voice of Fire" and it's ilk over a "trade" junket as a proper use of tax payers dollars nine times out of ten. There are far more cost effective ways to promote Canadian products and know how than lavish publicly funded trade junkets.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I agree with Screature.

It really is a matter of whether one is ok with tax dollars being used in some measure to support the arts. I am fine with it-it makes my list of priorities. I'm not going to reiterate all the previously made arguments on the value of a healthy, vibrant culture-I just think that the making of art-visual, performing, etc...is one of the highest achievements of human beings. Public galleries have a good and valid role to play in creating an archive, a collection of artistic works. Where they should be accountable is for having a clear mandate (ie different galleries focus on different categories of art), and being auditable within their mandate and the market at the time. 

We have NO problem putting public tax dollars into sports at all kinds of levels, and many enthusiasts consider sports to be a sacred and untouchable thing-its goodness and value is held to be self evident.

We'll never resolve the what is art question because everyone has an opinion.

Also, like it or not, people who have studied art, who have thought deeply about it, and who are immersed in understanding, creating and living art on a day to day basis have more informed opinions than the average person. Art is no different than any other field of study in this way.

I don't especially care for CF painting, or for much of Abstract Expressionism, but I do understand what the artists are trying to do, and it is much more than just a sham. Also, these schools of art have contributed significantly to artistic evolution over time.


----------

