Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Aberdeen Art Gallery


framheim

Recommended Posts

Nathan Coley at Mount Stuart

'There Will Be No Miracles Here' 2006 by Nathan Coley at Mount Stuart © Photography by Keith Hunter. Courtesy of the artist

http://www.spinscotland.co.uk/events/view/

Think your right, this might be the same guy, either that or someones away to get sued!

it is a coley...why can't it be?

it might be the model he made for the "final work"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me how that piece is described as art?

A photo of some scaffolding and some lightbulbs?

I just don't get it.

like a good joke, if you need to be explained why it is what it is, you miss the point.

I'm not trying to be arsey, or oversimplistic here, but, any art (even if you don't think it is) should be taken "seriously"...

the object of the "game" is for you to make up your own answers, or questions. If it was obvious or limited in its reading....it wouldn't be in the gallery.

If you think art should only be painting or sculpture, that's fine - but don't dismiss the other forms that many people do enjoy (?)

if you don't like Curry, would you want it to be "declassified" as being food?

again, perhaps an over simplification, but the best answer I can give here.

perhaps read the list that Sol Lewitt wrote and see how many points you dissagree with - remembering that "art should not be logical"

Sentences on Conceptual Art

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a coley...why can't it be?

it might be the model he made for the "final work"?

i don't think anyone was suggesting it couldn't be. i was just unable to find confirmation of this and need to know so that i can properly tag a photo i have of the art gallery with the piece visible through the front door.

it's a cracking piece and i think it works brilliantly well in the context of the art gallery, particularly when they have the doors open and you can see it from belmont street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like a good joke, if you need to be explained why it is what it is, you miss the point.

I'm not trying to be arsey, or oversimplistic here, but, any art (even if you don't think it is) should be taken "seriously"...

the object of the "game" is for you to make up your own answers, or questions. If it was obvious or limited in its reading....it wouldn't be in the gallery.

If you think art should only be painting or sculpture, that's fine - but don't dismiss the other forms that many people do enjoy (?)

if you don't like Curry, would you want it to be "declassified" as being food?

again, perhaps an over simplification, but the best answer I can give here.

perhaps read the list that Sol Lewitt wrote and see how many points you dissagree with - remembering that "art should not be logical"

Sentences on Conceptual Art

I didn't mean to step on toes. I appreciate that you see it as being artistic. I'm not into art at all, but that piece is probably something I could do.

Maybe I'd have to see his other works to "get the message" as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....but that piece is probably something I could do.

the classic response, if you don't mind me pointing that out.

"if it looks difficult to make, then it must be art" ?

remember, ideas are more important than execution...

the simple fact that you

a - didn't think to make that work

b - assume that the "end product" is the most important aspect of the work

shows why this is a work of art - and not something "pretending" to be a work of art.

intention is the key word when thinking about why a work exists. if you think that a simple pile of bricks "could be done by anyone", then you are looking at a pile of bricks, not the reason, concept and intention of putting those bricks in that specific context.

this is where conceptual art looses a lot of people, as it apprears to be a waste of time, or "pretentious"...

Ask yourself this, if it doesn't make sense (to you) - and your reaction is to discount it (or need proof that it is what it says it is (art) - apply that thought process to sub atomic particle physics ? do you need to be told that it is science, even though you don't have the faintest idea about it's origins, or thinking?

I was laughed at by an old fart that thought "art was painting" for relating "conceptual art" to "scientific research".

if an artist uses any method / medium to explore / perceive the world - communicating something that is more than words, then you have to accept that the artist is not being disengenious, but that you have to trust that person to be honest and is only using what limited abilities we (as humans) have - to highlight points of interest within our world...

again, the simple answer(s) are :

good art should make you think

it's your responsibility to react to work (be it good or bad) - as these reaction lead you (the viewer) to strengthen your position and understanding in the world.

one should always approach "art" with an open mind - it's up to you to think outside the box - what could this mean? what is the artist trying to say? - instead of the oh so easy "that looks shite - I don't get it".

It's partly bravery, for anyone to express an opinion that is from themself. Be it artist or viewer. It's also the understanding that there is "no right, no wrong" when it comes to reading work. this sentiment often leads to the "worry" of someone thinking that they don't fully know what the artist is trying to say....

so much more issues surround "the reading of work" - but that might just be a few seeds for starters ? (the exploration of "context" being the driving force for most conceptual art)

I still approach reading work with a "logical" head on now and again - it's the designer in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to become an artist.

Only if it's well paid, mind you.

that's the spirit.

becuase making art is easy, eh....all you have to do is put 2 things together and say it's art.

I get the feeling that you completely agree with the Sun's "turnip prize".

It's people who have no imagination that think they are having the wool pulled over their eyes, and start to think that a bannana wrapped in foil "is the metaphor for technology destroying rural african customs"* - wanting to be told that art is there to "take this piss" - it's paranoid, it's moronic and proves that not everyone has the ability to think for themselves.

again, it all boils down to intention. Artists do not take the piss - they are just sometimes hard to understand (to someone who is not so artistically inclined) - you'll find that the majority of people in the world want to be given answers - as they can't think for themselves. Who do you want to be?

read Sol's list again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying that you weren't saying that it wasn't by him?

(ho ho....this could go wrong sometime soon...)

Haha I think we'll end it there. It's certainly an interesting piece. Always good to see the Art gallery getting in new works. I personally liked the film of the ferel dog in china (I think it was) pretty disturbing stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha I think we'll end it there. It's certainly an interesting piece. Always good to see the Art gallery getting in new works. I personally liked the film of the ferel dog in china (I think it was) pretty disturbing stuff.

is that the south american, Guillermo Vargas story you are referring to?

the dog was fed and released

don't believe the hype.

(the work was actually highlighting that a man in the village (a down and out) was starved to death, and was then eaten by the local abandoned dogs. - a bit more shocking that the "reality" of having a skinny dog tied to a gallery wall for a day (being fed and watered when the show was not open). and it "escaped"....

again, the "power of art" - and also a trip into "context" - people worry more about one dog, as it has a spotlight of being stated as "a work of art" - failing to see the relevance, reason or intention behind the work - the inability to read around the work? "what is the artist trying to say", "what is the artist reacting to?"

nope - "he's just trying to shock us" - "he's a fraud" - "what a cunt" (ho ho)

a bit of research and a bit of un-bias reading can do wonders for the truth (or is it?........)

never trust wiki, but here you have the entry!

Guillermo Vargas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what I found interesting about that "show" were that the attendees held the art work in more reverence than the dog's life (if they indeed were the people disgusted by the set up).

The fact that one of the walls had dog biscuits that formed statements, could easily have been "defaced", in order to feed the dog is surely a statement about the viewers, not the gallery / artist ? complex, and difficult stuff - but again, that's the breeding ground for "good art" - not all art should be pretty - or "nice" - and were taught in school that art is painting, or sculpture - it's hard wired from an early age that "traditional art" is the only art...not really the case now.

Just like teaching kids that electrons "orbit the nuclei" - when science now disagrees that an electron is indeed a "particle"

conceptual art has only been "on the go" since the 20's (if that) - so it's got a long way to go to fight its case vs thousands of years of "traditional" (craft based) art...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that the south american, Guillermo Vargas story you are referring to?

the dog was fed and released

don't believe the hype.

(the work was actually highlighting that a man in the village (a down and out) was starved to death, and was then eaten by the local abandoned dogs. - a bit more shocking that the "reality" of having a skinny dog tied to a gallery wall for a day (being fed and watered when the show was not open). and it "escaped"....

again, the "power of art" - and also a trip into "context" - people worry more about one dog, as it has a spotlight of being stated as "a work of art" - failing to see the relevance, reason or intention behind the work - the inability to read around the work? "what is the artist trying to say", "what is the artist reacting to?"

nope - "he's just trying to shock us" - "he's a fraud" - "what a cunt" (ho ho)

a bit of research and a bit of un-bias reading can do wonders for the truth (or is it?........)

never trust wiki, but here you have the entry!

Guillermo Vargas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

central american actually :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to an exhibition of Robert Rauschenberg's work in Munich a few months ago which basically consisted of old cardboard boxes flattened out which were supposed to offer 'new insight' into what we commonly consider waste material. I realise I didn't create them, or have the idea to do so, but feel that prestige may be afforded to them solely by a big name attachment, and everything said big name brings to an otherwise non-event. Is this a legitimate standpoint? I found the whole thing embarrasingly funny and literally couldn't stop laughing once I'd wandered around for ten minutes - a release from the absurdity of taking it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to an exhibition of Robert Rauschenberg's work in Munich a few months ago which basically consisted of old cardboard boxes flattened out which were supposed to offer 'new insight' into what we commonly consider waste material. I realise I didn't create them, or have the idea to do so, but feel that prestige may be afforded to them solely by a big name attachment, and everything said big name brings to an otherwise non-event. Is this a legitimate standpoint? I found the whole thing embarrasingly funny and literally couldn't stop laughing once I'd wandered around for ten minutes - a release from the absurdity of taking it seriously.

and that's a valid response!

I was often frowned upon during my MA for trying to use "humour" when talking about work (or even making it)...after the course, I'd realised that it was the limitation of certain tutors that were the problem, not my inarticulate reasons (and that was ultimately the problem) art is there to reflect life - and ALL emotions should be called upon.

that's also not needlessly to say that there is no "poetry" in a flattened box (?) - again, it's up to the "reader" as to how far they take a given situation into their own realms of the imagination? - but "the mundane" is always going to cause extreme reactions (paradoxically!)

I remember one lecture, where one artist poured milk from one glass into the other and stated that he was "transforming milk into milk" - I was enraged, what a load of shite, I'd thought...meanwhile, another MA student erupted into laughter, as he enjoyed the "poetry" of the action, he could always see the poetry in many things I could only see as the physical, tangible situation presented. I learned a lot from someone elses reaction, without feeling lesser, or "wrong" - if anything, the envy of simple enjoyment of an action.

Watching my daughter explore the world is also a wake up call to my sensibilities - the sheer joy of watching, playing, manipulating every day objects and who knows what's going on in her head - I know she's learning, but the thoughts that must be being formed (I imagine) are amazing. It's the constraint of "proper" and "rules" that we can only judge our experiences - the child like ability to find wonder in the simplest thing or situation is nothing to be scoffed at - it only sets to state our ability to conform that we would do so (?)

again, elements of embarrassment and conformity are questioned, when we are expected to find something of interest in the "mundane"....

I too would have been laughing, by the way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, elements of embarrassment and conformity are questioned, when we are expected to find something of interest in the "mundane"....

I too would have been laughing, by the way

Seriously it was fucking hilarious. However, watching a video of Rauschenberg - another part of the exhibition - I got the impression he wouldn't have minded my response. I think you're right that there will always be problems asking people to take flattened cardboard boxes seriously but you could say that, to an extent, the strength of a reaction (regardless of type) is the best gauge of artistic merit. In this case I was reduced to giggling-schoolboy-in-the-head-teacher's-office and it was quite a memorable experience, even if not the most moving or profound in the classic sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously it was fucking hilarious. However, watching a video of Rauschenberg - another part of the exhibition - I got the impression he wouldn't have minded my response. I think you're right that there will always be problems asking people to take flattened cardboard boxes seriously but you could say that, to an extent, the strength of a reaction (regardless of type) is the best gauge of artistic merit. In this case I was reduced to giggling-schoolboy-in-the-head-teacher's-office and it was quite a memorable experience, even if not the most moving or profound in the classic sense.

he could have subtly been "ribbing" the tubine hall work of Whiteread?

Tate Modern| Past Exhibitions | The Unilever Series: Rachel Whiteread: EMBANKMENT:

whiteread-final-1.jpg

This was limited (for me) - it seemed obvious...there is a joy in repetition, the ability to create something large from many small components...but I think her approach was pretty vacuous here...(no pun intended...well....ok, a wee bit).

and you are absolutly right, "memorable experience" is probably the biggest compliment you could give an artist. The search for "profundity" in every experience is also quite obsurd, is it not? what is wrong with questioning the "everyday", surely it's more important to look and question what we take for granted, rather than illustrating the "grand" ?

I'll also add that be it empty boxes or piles of hair - it must also be read as metaphor surely? - again, relying on the viewer to input their own imagination and "play" to get more meaning from the "component parts" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that the south american, Guillermo Vargas story you are referring to?

the dog was fed and released

don't believe the hype.

(the work was actually highlighting that a man in the village (a down and out) was starved to death, and was then eaten by the local abandoned dogs. - a bit more shocking that the "reality" of having a skinny dog tied to a gallery wall for a day (being fed and watered when the show was not open). and it "escaped"....

again, the "power of art" - and also a trip into "context" - people worry more about one dog, as it has a spotlight of being stated as "a work of art" - failing to see the relevance, reason or intention behind the work - the inability to read around the work? "what is the artist trying to say", "what is the artist reacting to?"

nope - "he's just trying to shock us" - "he's a fraud" - "what a cunt" (ho ho)

a bit of research and a bit of un-bias reading can do wonders for the truth (or is it?........)

never trust wiki, but here you have the entry!

Guillermo Vargas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what I found interesting about that "show" were that the attendees held the art work in more reverence than the dog's life (if they indeed were the people disgusted by the set up).

The fact that one of the walls had dog biscuits that formed statements, could easily have been "defaced", in order to feed the dog is surely a statement about the viewers, not the gallery / artist ? complex, and difficult stuff - but again, that's the breeding ground for "good art" - not all art should be pretty - or "nice" - and were taught in school that art is painting, or sculpture - it's hard wired from an early age that "traditional art" is the only art...not really the case now.

Just like teaching kids that electrons "orbit the nuclei" - when science now disagrees that an electron is indeed a "particle"

conceptual art has only been "on the go" since the 20's (if that) - so it's got a long way to go to fight its case vs thousands of years of "traditional" (craft based) art...

I wasn't actually speaking about that piece though I did read an article about it, I was talking about the film piece of the ferel dog lying down on a busy road in china (again not sure about the location) and the cars are just driving past without slowing down. Much like we would if we saw a seagull. At the end of the piece the dog walks off without harm but something struck a chord with me about the piece, it made me challenge my perceptions, which is always a good thing. A simple yet effective piece of work. I take it you'll be heading along to see the MA degree show tonight? If so I might see you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...