Art Lovers discussion

"_____________ was raised Catholic..._____ early religion education would later factor into ___ artwork. But ___ mother would later describe ___ as a morbid child. As a teenager, ____________ liked to look at illustrated pathology books.

___ also showed an interest in drawing, a passion ___ mother supported. ___ father, a car mechanic, left the family when ___ was only 12 years old.

_____________ got into trouble as teenager, and was caught shoplifting twice. Despite ___ sometimes wild behavior, ___ made his way to college and studied art...

_________ and ___ fellow students became part of an emerging {movement}. They were known for their unusual materials and for their challenging art concepts...not everyone was enthralled with ___work...

____________ ... set the art world on fire with ___ work at the Venice Bienniale, a renowned international art exhibition.

"It's amazing what you can do with an E in A-Level art, a twisted imagination and a chainsaw," _________ said

Later, [___ created a] work that was part of a series known as {...}paintings, but ______________ only painted a few of them. ___ had other artists carry out ___visions...

In addition to being a creative visionary, _________ has proved to be savvy in business...

_____________ continued to push the boundaries of art...and many critics were less than impressed with {art piece}. Others marveled at the anticipated selling price of {$______} Perhaps a sign of declining interest in ___ work, no one initially bought the piece.

___ then exhibited a group of paintings... which provoked the ire of many critics who labeled the pieces "dull" and "amateurish." but these days, _______ shows no signs of slowing down.

Who Am I?

Odd Nordrum or whatever is his last name.

Nope. Good guess!

Could be that this is one of the top ten list?

Francis Bacon?

Maybe Dirk...

No, I’m sorry Chris. Nice try!

Well then, I don't think it's Koons, Maybe Hirst? (morbid child and savvy businessman seem to fit...)

Yes! It is Damien Hirst.

Not my favorite artist. But he sure knows how to make a profit.

A matter of taste ...

Chris wrote: "A matter of taste ..."

Indeed. I have yet to know someone who has a 'taste' for bisected sheep in formaldehyde. Or a shark, or...

If anyone here in this group actually enjoys, aesthetically, these different morbid (IMO) works, please speak up, I'm curious to know!

Certainly not me.

Unfamiliar with his work, I went to Google images.Interestingly, almost all the images were of the artist. What does that tell you...His paintings remind me of those spinning art things you make at the county fair.

For you, Kristine These are what I'm talking about...



God Knows Why



The Tranquillity Of Solitude



Love's Paradox

How do third rate artists achieve stellar status? It helps to have a name that is unusual and arty.

The Promise of Money

Split Shark



A Thousand Years

Why do museums encourage bad art? Because so many of the general public have bad taste and incorrect notions of what constitute good art. Shock us once, shock us twice, but by all means, shocks us thoroughly and you will gain recognition as a major artist.

Saint Sebastian Exquisite Pain

Geoffrey wrote: "How do third rate artists achieve stellar status? It helps to have a name that is unusual and arty."

I always wondered if the name "Damien" had anything to do with it. Isn't that supposedly a 'devil's' name? And he is sick and twisted, IMO.

Geoffrey wrote: "Why do museums encourage bad art? Because so many of the general public have bad taste and incorrect notions of what constitute good art. Shock us once, shock us twice, but by all means, shocks us ..."

Right

Heather wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "How do third rate artists achieve stellar status? It helps to have a name that is unusual and arty."

I always wondered if the name "Damien" had anything to do with it. Isn't that ..."

I am glad you made that point. I was hoping someone would spare me to mention the value of a name in fame.

Truly vile and unworthy of the term art. The interesting question is where to draw the line. The carcass brings to mind the carcass painted by Chaïm Soutine. How would you place him? I heard an antidote that the health department showed up because the carcass he was taking a long time to paint stunk and had maggots. Can't say he's a favorite but I might have to credit him with starting a bad art trend. The "art world" seeks originality and therefore riches. Skill has little to do with it.

I agree that skill has very little to do with how to judge art anymore. And I think it’s sad. Just because something is ‘original’ doesn’t necessarily mean it has to qualify as art. Especially that which is just disgusting or vulgar or particularly indecent. (IMO)

Spot on Heather. We had a similar incident here in Merida, Yucatan at the gallery which had represented me for a decade, ( still do I think, but that's another matter). Apparently a leading practionner in the field was given a one person show years ago at the gallery before I came onto the scene. The gallery owner absented herself to do an errand when putting up the show and the artist had contacted a local butcher to bring half a carcass of beef into the gallery, suspended it from the ceiling and when she returned that is what faced her. Not encased or contained in any manner, just bare with blood and guts dripping on the gallery floor. This is the same artist who daily publishes his prints in the daily newspaper, exhibiting S & M.

I just remembered...Gauguin also painted a carcass. Who painted it better? Might be an interesting thread. Again, at what point is the line crossed from controversial to garbage. I know art when I see it?

Heather wrote: "I agree that skill has very little to do with how to judge art anymore. And I think it’s sad. Just because something is ‘original’ doesn’t necessarily mean it has to qualify as art. Especially that which is just disgusting or vulgar or particularly indecent."

Remember that the Inquisition considered this painting (below) to be "indecent and prejudicial to the public good."



A contemporary critic wrote of this canvas, “Mr. Cézanne merely gives the impression of being a sort of madman, painting in a state of delirium tremens.”



How time changes things.

Geoffrey wrote: "Spot on Heather...the artist had contacted a local butcher to bring half a carcass of beef into the gallery, suspended it from the ceiling and when she returned that is what faced her. Not encased or contained in any manner, just bare with blood and guts dripping on the gallery floor. This is the same artist who daily publishes his prints in the daily newspaper, exhibiting S & M. "

That's just disgusting. Horrible! I'm sorry for those of you who do appreciate this 'art', I'm not bashing anyone's taste, just sharing my own opinions.

Lance wrote: "Heather wrote: "I agree that skill has very little to do with how to judge art anymore. And I think it’s sad. Just because something is ‘original’ doesn’t necessarily mean it has to qualify as art...."

You're right, Lance. Times change according to what the public esteems "indecent", but a moral question in art, I think, is a bit different than that which is outright gruesome. That which those of us who can't literally stomach it, can't look at.

And thank you for sharing that Cezanne. I like it! If that is crazy, what is today? Money, Money, Money. As the one cow with the entrails hanging out is titled "The Promise of Money". I wonder how much that one is worth?

I want to add that the top painting you posted actually portrays skill. I would like to see those critics try to do the same!

It all started with this:


Most people still think this was put up for exhibition by Marcel Duchamp.
But more and more people are pointing to a woman behind this “artwork”:




Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven




A letter from Duchamps to his sister Suzanne 11/04/1917 now in the Smithsonian Institute.

In it he writes: One of my (lady) friends has sent in a porcelain urinoir under the male pseudonym Richard Mutt as a sculpture. It was not in the least indecent, so when the board rejected it I quit.

Until 1935 no-one connects Duchamp with the urinal, nor does Duchamp itself claim the work. Only eighteen years after the appearance of Fountain, writer André Bréton identifies Duchamp as creator, in an article in the surrealistic magazine Minotaure. Duchamp remains silent again and does not want to deny or confirm the attribution. It was not until the sixties, when Duchamp was in his seventies and felt his death approaching, that he brought stories into the world that had to prove that Fountain was his idea. "He wanted to go down in history as one of the founding fathers of modern art, alongside Picasso, Matisse, Kandinsky and Mondriaan. He had nothing surprisingly original from that period to show, so he claimed the urinal." (Julian Spalding in See All This).


The fact hat the art world still does not recognize Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven as the creator of Fountain may also have to do with the financial consequences. Millions have been paid for the many copies of the urinal authorized by Duchamp. According to the latest census, there are seventeen replicas - one of which was purchased for $ 500,000 in 1999 to celebrate the opening of Tate Modern. This story, says Spalding, "undermines everything that the art world has promoted over the past forty years and the art in which it has invested."

Lance makes a good point...times change and tastes change. The Damien Hirst is all that I consider appalling with contemporary art but at what point do we draw the line? As these works show, it isn't necessarily about subject matter. Very interesting revelation about "The Fountain". The whole Dada thing came about as a reaction to the horrors of war. If that was justification then, what about now? All I know is that I look to art for solace but that doesn't necessarily mean superficial beauty. I hope it was OK to post here...

Oh..Rembrandt 1655. Issac Van Ostade 1645. Chaim Soutine 1924.
Francis Bacon 1954

It's a great place to post your comment, Kristine. And thank you for adding those.
The difference I see here with your paintings and those 'things' of Hirst are his are/were real, living creatures that he massacred and put on display. And maggots eating a cow's head? That's disgusting! No, I wouldn't care for a painting of the same, but to me, that's not the same thing.
As to your paintings above, Francis Bacon weirds me out. I do not like his work at all! And that one above is more creepy than disgusting. (Guts and blood hanging out of a once-live cow??)
It's not up to me, but maybe they could draw the line at once-living-now-dead things? But that doesn't put a limit on immorality... I don't know. Good question.

It seems to me that there are those who judge art with a monetary lens. Then there are the true artists and art lovers who are guided by their inner voices in their assessments. Unfortunately many people listen to the former and are too unsure of themselves to form their own opinions. Is there a right or wrong in art? Maybe just a deep and a superficial.

Kristine wrote: "It seems to me that there are those who judge art with a monetary lens. Then there are the true artists and art lovers who are guided by their inner voices in their assessments. Unfortunately many ..."

Well said, Kristine.