Oh, do fück off!

[Burney]

I know all the bullshït arguments about what does or doesn't constitute art, but they're all just so much sophistry designed to obscure the fact that the emperor is stark, bôllock naked.

This heap of shït can fück off.

383

[Pokster]

I know all the bullshït arguments about what does or doesn't constitute art, but they're all just so much sophistry designed to obscure the fact that the emperor is stark, bôllock naked.

This heap of shït can fück off.

383

Did you see her interview on BBC news last night, she couldn't explain her art or how she won.. "I don't know" seemed to cover it.... looked like a car boot sale to me

[Sir C]

I know all the bullshït arguments about what does or doesn't constitute art, but they're all just so much sophistry designed to obscure the fact that the emperor is stark, bôllock naked.

This heap of shït can fück off.

383

:hehe: Some genius is going to pay a fortune to own that, I expect.

[Burney]

Did you see her interview on BBC news last night, she couldn't explain her art or how she won.. "I don't know" seemed to cover it.... looked like a car boot sale to me

The Guardian's writing about it is even funnier. An all-time Pseud's Corner winner that's enough to win about fifteen games of bullshît bingo in one paragraph alone.


In its way, Marten’s work is even more agglomerative than Dean’s, but the chain of associations, and the part-to-part relationships between its successive, hand-made and crafted elements enrich rather than confuse the complications of her work. As at the Serpentine and in Wakefield, she knows that amassing detail is not enough. There is a formal language at work here, leading the eye as well as the mind on a journey. Her art splices mental associations with an acute sense of materiality, scale and tactility. In her art, thinking is made concrete. It is more than free association or an unfocused interior monologue. We are forever losing the thread and refinding it with Marten. There are stems and branches, thoughts shooting off, parentheses, pauses for breath, full stops. The same happens in the best of Anthony Caro’s work, but he was lousy at taking things beyond the abstract.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

I know all the bullshït arguments about what does or doesn't constitute art, but they're all just so much sophistry designed to obscure the fact that the emperor is stark, bôllock naked.

This heap of shït can fück off.

383

Is exactly the reaction she/they was/were looking for. Surely it's far better to ignore and let the pretentious pillocks who like this gubbins get on with their circle jerking and just enjoy the art you do enjoy?

[Burney]

:hehe: Some genius is going to pay a fortune to own that, I expect.

Yes, and more fool them. However, what makes me genuinely angry about it is that it's pure obscurantism for its own sake. 'Art' no longer even pretends to expressing anything about universal experience, preferring instead to restrict itself to a tiny coterie of mutual masturbators who inhabit their little bubble and dismiss any external criticism as fuelled by ignorance and anti-intellectualsm.

It's increasingly a microcosm of our political and social divisions, in fact.

[Sir C]

The Guardian's writing about it is even funnier. An all-time Pseud's Corner winner that's enough to win about fifteen games of bullshît bingo in one paragraph alone.

This comment just about sums it up perfectly. "haha, what a load of fúcking wánk, fetishised by imbeciles."

[Burney]

Is exactly the reaction she/they was/were looking for. Surely it's far better to ignore and let the pretentious pillocks who like this gubbins get on with their circle jerking and just enjoy the art you do enjoy?


Yes, but there's a serious wider social impact of this sort of self-appointed Brahminic status. It is explicitly designed to divide between those enlightened souls who 'get it' and everyone else who just sees a heap of crap. That has implications.

[Sir C]

Yes, and more fool them. However, what makes me genuinely angry about it is that it's pure obscurantism for its own sake. 'Art' no longer even pretends to expressing anything about universal experience, preferring instead to restrict itself to a tiny coterie of mutual masturbators who inhabit their little bubble and dismiss any external criticism as fuelled by ignorance and anti-intellectualsm.

It's increasingly a microcosm of our political and social divisions, in fact.

Hold on, you're surely not suggesting that art is in any way elitist?

I would say that art has always be created by and for a tiny circle of insiders. You're just bitter because your inability to appreciate modern art has ejected you from the elite enclave and dumped you firmly back out here in the realm of thick, common people.

[Sir C]

Yes, but there's a serious wider social impact of this sort of self-appointed Brahminic status. It is explicitly designed to divide between those enlightened souls who 'get it' and everyone else who just sees a heap of crap. That has implications.

Yes, like that **** Joyce with his unfathomable prose. It's been going on forever.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

Yes, but there's a serious wider social impact of this sort of self-appointed Brahminic status. It is explicitly designed to divide between those enlightened souls who 'get it' and everyone else who just sees a heap of crap. That has implications.

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with you on that. The Turner Prize is not really relevant to anyone outside the higher echelons of the 'artistic' fraternity - I have more than a passing interest in 'art' for example but I honestly don't give two hoots about the TP and haven't for donkey's years. I doubt your average Joe even knows what it is - it's just prats like Will Gompertz and the art critics at the broadsheets like to think it and they are still relevant :shrug: I saw it yesterday and just thought 'Oh, usual bòllocks then' and moved on :-)

[Burney]

Hold on, you're surely not suggesting that art is in any way elitist?

I would say that art has always be created by and for a tiny circle of insiders. You're just bitter because your inability to appreciate modern art has ejected you from the elite enclave and dumped you firmly back out here in the realm of thick, common people.

Nonsense. Most of the great Renaissance art was public and devotional. Sure, it was paid for by rich patrons, but it was not hidden away in museums. It was where everyone could see it - indeed was designed to be seen by multitudes in the place they all had to go once a week - church.
Now, of course, as time has gone on, there has been a tendency for art to become more private, but even that trend has been mitigated by democratising forces that have meant free museums such as the National Gallery or philanthropic donations have made art available to the masses. So I would agree that it has been created by a tiny coterie, but not that it has traditionally been designed for a tiny coterie. And that is the difference now.

[Burney]

Yes, like that **** Joyce with his unfathomable prose. It's been going on forever.

One can forgive the early experimenters more than their modern imitators, though. Joyce could write like an angel (as he proved in Portrait of the Artist and Dubliners), but sought to do something new with Ulysses that in parts is wonderful but in others not so much. And then the whole thing turns to shít with Finnegan's Wake, of course.

The same process can be observed in Picasso, who could draw like Raphael if he chose to, but tried to do something new. That was fine for a while, but eventually resulted in him becoming a hack who realised the punters would buy any old shït if it had his name on it.

Less forgivable are those who have seen these innovators come and go, and have deliberately chosen obscurantism over accessibility.

[Sir C]

Nonsense. Most of the great Renaissance art was public and devotional. Sure, it was paid for by rich patrons, but it was not hidden away in museums. It was where everyone could see it - indeed was designed to be seen by multitudes in the place they all had to go once a week - church.
Now, of course, as time has gone on, there has been a tendency for art to become more private, but even that trend has been mitigated by democratising forces that have meant free museums such as the National Gallery or philanthropic donations have made art available to the masses. So I would agree that it has been created by a tiny coterie, but not that it has traditionally been designed for a tiny coterie. And that is the difference now.

Well, that's devotional art of the Rennaissance dealt with :shrug:

Holbein created art for his sponsor. Turner for the Royal Academy. Rothko for his mates, I suppose. :shrug:

[Sir C]

One can forgive the early experimenters more than their modern imitators, though. Joyce could write like an angel (as he proved in Portrait of the Artist and Dubliners), but sought to do something new with Ulysses that in parts is wonderful but in others not so much. And then the whole thing turns to shít with Finnegan's Wake, of course.

The same process can be observed in Picasso, who could draw like Raphael if he chose to, but tried to do something new. That was fine for a while, but eventually resulted in him becoming a hack who realised the punters would buy any old shït if it had his name on it.

Less forgivable are those who have seen these innovators come and go, and have deliberately chosen obscurantism over accessibility.

Remember when Ian Harvey taught us that the great danger in art is accessibility? :hehe:

[Luis Anaconda]

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with you on that. The Turner Prize is not really relevant to anyone outside the higher echelons of the 'artistic' fraternity - I have more than a passing interest in 'art' for example but I honestly don't give two hoots about the TP and haven't for donkey's years. I doubt your average Joe even knows what it is - it's just prats like Will Gompertz and the art critics at the broadsheets like to think it and they are still relevant :shrug: I saw it yesterday and just thought 'Oh, usual bòllocks then' and moved on :-)

You have to remember that Berni is a Guardian reader and thus thinks the world revolves around its contents, 71

[Burney]

Well, that's devotional art of the Rennaissance dealt with :shrug:

Holbein created art for his sponsor. Turner for the Royal Academy. Rothko for his mates, I suppose. :shrug:

I was merely refuting the idea that art had always been created for a tiny coterie.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

You have to remember that Berni is a Guardian reader and thus thinks the world revolves around its contents, 71
Gpwm, LA. :-)

[Burney]

Remember when Ian Harvey taught us that the great danger in art is accessibility? :hehe:


Ah, the false syllogism of the pseud: "Everyone but me is stupid. Nobody else likes it. Therefore it must be good and I must be very, very special."

[Burney]

You have to remember that Berni is a Guardian reader and thus thinks the world revolves around its contents, 71

Nice try, la, but I'm not biting. :hehe: :vsign:

[Luis Anaconda]

Nice try, la, but I'm not biting. :hehe: :vsign:

I would be disappointed in you if you did, b

[Ash]

I know all the bullshït arguments about what does or doesn't constitute art, but they're all just so much sophistry designed to obscure the fact that the emperor is stark, bôllock naked.

This heap of shït can fück off.

383

Apart from the dangly bits I find that I quite like it. This is probably because if have been innoculated against the horror of this sort of thing by the hanging of insect art in my workplace, which is constructed out of bits from an old toolbox.

Conclusion: It's an acquired taste, and I might put in a cheeky bid: 28p and a packet of Discos.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Who is responsible for this installation?



I know all the bullshït arguments about what does or doesn't constitute art, but they're all just so much sophistry designed to obscure the fact that the emperor is stark, bôllock naked.

This heap of shït can fück off.

383