Saatchi gives gallery to nation

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 8:10 PM GMT
    Good to see that philanthropy of art is alive in these austere times.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10476497.stm

    What are peoples views in general on contemporary works of art? Does contemporary art reflect our civilisation, or is it mainly for shock and surprise value?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 8:49 PM GMT
    It's not for the masses. I'm an artist by profession and you need a great deal of academic study and contextualization to appreciate the grand majority of contemporary art. There is nothing face value about it, even when there is nothing BUT face value (and yes this statement makes sense icon_razz.gif).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 8:53 PM GMT
    To approach it differently, contemporary art has more to do with a 300-page doctoral thesis on philosophy than a painting on a wall. Toss that document at a regular joe and they'll be like wtf is this, but its place is within academia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 9:10 PM GMT
    I'm sorry to keep posting but this topic really stirs my gut icon_razz.gif

    To those who decry contemporary art as "weird" or give a "who would buy this??" "this is stupid!", this is my personal tidbit. Art transcends commerce, markets and pragmatics. It is the driving force that questions ethics, philosophy, and the junction between the world inside our mind and the material world that surrounds us. To question the purpose of contemporary art is to question the purpose of the pursuit of philosophy, the profound questioning of human existence and civilization, behavior and belief.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 11:59 PM GMT
    ^ What he said icon_smile.gif

    I'm an artist too, and I love contemporary art. Most other forms of art kind of bore me in fact, because for me personally, art is all about the concept. So a pretty painting of a sunset really does nothing for me if there is nothing behind it.

    I will say there is a lot of shock value trash out there, with no real basis, and that stuff pisses me off. But for the most part, contemporary art, or any art that is considered modern at the time it was made, absolutely is a reflection of civilization... if it's good, it is a reflection of the time and place it was made, and has historical relevance.
  • neosyllogy

    Posts: 1714

    Jul 02, 2010 12:12 AM GMT
    Ciarsolo said To question the purpose of contemporary art is to question the purpose of the pursuit of philosophy, the profound questioning of human existence and civilization, behavior and belief.


    Slightly playing devil's advocate:
    What is the purpose of the pursuit of philosophy that can only be shared amongst professional philosophers?

    If art asks or answers questions in a way that is useful to no one (as suggested above) but a very small group of artists then does it have any general social value? And is there purpose (e.g. Saatchi's donation) in making public spaces for such work?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2010 12:22 AM GMT
    neosyllogy said
    Ciarsolo said To question the purpose of contemporary art is to question the purpose of the pursuit of philosophy, the profound questioning of human existence and civilization, behavior and belief.


    Slightly playing devil's advocate:
    What is the purpose of the pursuit of philosophy that can only be shared amongst professional philosophers?

    If art asks or answers questions in a way that is useful to no one (as suggested above) but a very small group of artists then does it have any general social value? And is there purpose (e.g. Saatchi's donation) in making public spaces for such work?


    It is this academic dialogue that creates the foundation for socio-ethical and even socio-political change. The medium may not be accesible to the masses (the actual), but it is made in the service of humanity. The highly philosophical, historically, will distill to the popularly available. Think of the impact of The Enlightenment as an example in terms of the contemporary notions one can attribute to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2010 12:22 AM GMT
    Ciarsolo saidI'm sorry to keep posting but this topic really stirs my gut icon_razz.gif

    To those who decry contemporary art as "weird" or give a "who would buy this??" "this is stupid!", this is my personal tidbit. Art transcends commerce, markets and pragmatics. It is the driving force that questions ethics, philosophy, and the junction between the world inside our mind and the material world that surrounds us. To question the purpose of contemporary art is to question the purpose of the pursuit of philosophy, the profound questioning of human existence and civilization, behavior and belief.
    Contemporary Art:
    thisisart.jpg
    I promise never to drink and play with PS ever again. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2010 12:31 AM GMT
    Your stamping patterns are one-dimensional and your color choices are arbitrary, Paul. It's self-referential and hollow with the exception of those three larger organic shapes. The text negates the piece and serves no further purpose than to re-enforce your personal belief that it is invalid. You chose a thread about contemporary art within a gay fitness and lifestyle website as your context. Have a nice day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2010 12:48 AM GMT
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/

    "My Kid Could Paint That"

    A highly recommended documentary for anyone interested in this "debate" regardless of what side you're on...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2010 3:44 AM GMT
    Gloppy said The result, sadly, is gaggle after gaggle of astute 21 year-old critics who don't know the first thing about making.


    Craft can be irrelevant. An important aspect to consider is that despite its intellectual base, contemporary art is what it is, or rather can be whatever it is. In some ways this gives it the possibility to be extremely well crafted. Or not. Or it can demonstrate a profound impact of the last 400 years of art. Or not. The trendiest clique in the New York art world may love it. Or not. In the end it's the artist, what they made, why they made it, and whatever impact it had. All the shoulds, shouldn'ts, would've and could'ves don't matter a damn thing.

    Art in the world today has its hand held by no one. You want to make art? Go ahead. Do what you want. Make what you want out of it. Make the response you want happen. No rules, but don't expect anyone to care. Use your astuteness to make happen what you want to happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2010 5:26 AM GMT
    Ciarsolo saidYour stamping patterns are one-dimensional and your color choices are arbitrary, Paul. It's self-referential and hollow with the exception of those three larger organic shapes. The text negates the piece and serves no further purpose than to re-enforce your personal belief that it is invalid. You chose a thread about contemporary art within a gay fitness and lifestyle website as your context. Have a nice day.
    You just fell into your own trap. icon_wink.gif

    Ciarsolo said... To question the purpose of contemporary art is to question the purpose of the pursuit of philosophy, the profound questioning of human existence and civilization, behavior and belief.
    The original purpose of that was to prove that art is subjective. If I'd made that large enough to have a poster made of it, it would be hanging on my wall. Srsly. icon_biggrin.gif