Turner prize.

Art doesn't have to have a purpose, there's no minimum quality, skill, value or definition. If a person decides to express an idea, any idea, and show it to others then it is art.

In the case of the Turner Prize, you often have to separate the artwork from the artist. It's as much about circumstance and debate as it is about any single piece of work.

Challenging convention, looking at our world through artistic lenses and seeing new things in our every day reality is what makes art important and exciting. All artists give us insight into the world around us which, whilst we might not understand, represent an alternative view of the lives we share. And that, to me, is what makes art a worthwhile and important endeavour.

This thread, or any general attitude of, "I don't get it, it's just some bricks" for example, IS a response to artistic endeavour and therefore comprises part of the artwork. Without human engagement, reaction and discussion, art doesn't exist.

Personally I think contemporary dance is the worst art. But I appreciate its existence despite it doing nothing but confuse and enrage me - but maybe that's the point of it! There's no right and wrong in art. It's just stuff that exists to stimulate our minds in different ways. And that's why I like art in its many forms.

Helen Marten's sculptures are interesting to me. We are living in an increasingly disposable culture, one of consume and discard. So her sculptures in my mind show a different point of view in which creation is more important than destruction or discard. That's an interesting idea to think about. So it's a worthwhile work of art for me.
 
Art doesn't have to have a purpose, there's no minimum quality, skill, value or definition. If a person decides to express an idea, any idea, and show it to others then it is art.

In the case of the Turner Prize, you often have to separate the artwork from the artist. It's as much about circumstance and debate as it is about any single piece of work.

Challenging convention, looking at our world through artistic lenses and seeing new things in our every day reality is what makes art important and exciting. All artists give us insight into the world around us which, whilst we might not understand, represent an alternative view of the lives we share. And that, to me, is what makes art a worthwhile and important endeavour.

This thread, or any general attitude of, "I don't get it, it's just some bricks" for example, IS a response to artistic endeavour and therefore comprises part of the artwork. Without human engagement, reaction and discussion, art doesn't exist.

Personally I think contemporary dance is the worst art. But I appreciate its existence despite it doing nothing but confuse and enrage me - but maybe that's the point of it! There's no right and wrong in art. It's just stuff that exists to stimulate our minds in different ways. And that's why I like art in its many forms.

Helen Marten's sculptures are interesting to me. We are living in an increasingly disposable culture, one of consume and discard. So her sculptures in my mind show a different point of view in which creation is more important than destruction or discard. That's an interesting idea to think about. So it's a worthwhile work of art for me.

Excellent post!

Can I add I went to a show that was contemporary dance. Some of it was, different, and some of it was eh what the... discussed it for an hour over a beer afterwards. Very thought provoking...
 
Art doesn't have to have a purpose, there's no minimum quality, skill, value or definition. If a person decides to express an idea, any idea, and show it to others then it is art.

In the case of the Turner Prize, you often have to separate the artwork from the artist. It's as much about circumstance and debate as it is about any single piece of work.

Challenging convention, looking at our world through artistic lenses and seeing new things in our every day reality is what makes art important and exciting. All artists give us insight into the world around us which, whilst we might not understand, represent an alternative view of the lives we share. And that, to me, is what makes art a worthwhile and important endeavour.

This thread, or any general attitude of, "I don't get it, it's just some bricks" for example, IS a response to artistic endeavour and therefore comprises part of the artwork. Without human engagement, reaction and discussion, art doesn't exist.

Personally I think contemporary dance is the worst art. But I appreciate its existence despite it doing nothing but confuse and enrage me - but maybe that's the point of it! There's no right and wrong in art. It's just stuff that exists to stimulate our minds in different ways. And that's why I like art in its many forms.

Helen Marten's sculptures are interesting to me. We are living in an increasingly disposable culture, one of consume and discard. So her sculptures in my mind show a different point of view in which creation is more important than destruction or discard. That's an interesting idea to think about. So it's a worthwhile work of art for me.

As much as I agree with 99.9% of what you say, art is in the eye of the beholder. Ones mans chip shot is another mans pitch and run shot. Don't mean ones right and the other is wrong it means the one you did not chose is not for you and Helen Martens effort is deffo not for me. But the disposable culture bit I can relate to, because that would deffo not go in my recycle bin. Straight to the tip for that Rammel.
Now I may come across as thick when it comes to painting by numbers, but art was one of m my fave subjects at school and no matter what we did or what I looked at, there had to be a certain level of skill involved for me to like it and looking at most of the Turner exhibits, although the thought process may well be excellent. they look like they have the finishing skill of
" a dead elephant" to coin a phrase.
During my many visits to Italy I have found myself spending hours looking at paintings, sculptures, buildings etc for hours to an extent your day has gone. They have been credited to some of the greatest artists ever born. To be told that da Vinci may well of designed it but his apprentice minions actually spent three months for example smashing A marble block to bits to make it, is astounding. He made the 12" model and his apprentices made the actual pieces, it had to happen or he would still be alive today finishing off the pieces he designed. The turner prize short list looks like they were thought out on a Friday nice over a few bottles of red and then screwed together over the weekend over another couple of bottles of red.
So is all modern art Rammel ? no Banksy, for me is the man. His street graffiti is thought provoking. It looks like it has been thought out and there is a certain level of skill involved. His name will live on a lot longer than forgettable Turner winners.
Finally, my favourite artist of all time? L S Lowery. He is famous for his matchstick paintings, yet go to his exhibitions in Salford and some of his drawings and paintings ( for me ) are just amazing. Yet when his picture of the queens coronation was painted it was described as Rammel and shipped out to the British embassy in Moscow where it was forgotten until someone realised it is now worth millions. Again, another whose ideas were represented by a certain level of skill.
 
As much as I agree with 99.9% of what you say, art is in the eye of the beholder. Ones mans chip shot is another mans pitch and run shot. Don't mean ones right and the other is wrong it means the one you did not chose is not for you and Helen Martens effort is deffo not for me. But the disposable culture bit I can relate to, because that would deffo not go in my recycle bin. Straight to the tip for that Rammel.
Now I may come across as thick when it comes to painting by numbers, but art was one of m my fave subjects at school and no matter what we did or what I looked at, there had to be a certain level of skill involved for me to like it and looking at most of the Turner exhibits, although the thought process may well be excellent. they look like they have the finishing skill of
" a dead elephant" to coin a phrase.
During my many visits to Italy I have found myself spending hours looking at paintings, sculptures, buildings etc for hours to an extent your day has gone. They have been credited to some of the greatest artists ever born. To be told that da Vinci may well of designed it but his apprentice minions actually spent three months for example smashing A marble block to bits to make it, is astounding. He made the 12" model and his apprentices made the actual pieces, it had to happen or he would still be alive today finishing off the pieces he designed. The turner prize short list looks like they were thought out on a Friday nice over a few bottles of red and then screwed together over the weekend over another couple of bottles of red.
So is all modern art Rammel ? no Banksy, for me is the man. His street graffiti is thought provoking. It looks like it has been thought out and there is a certain level of skill involved. His name will live on a lot longer than forgettable Turner winners.
Finally, my favourite artist of all time? L S Lowery. He is famous for his matchstick paintings, yet go to his exhibitions in Salford and some of his drawings and paintings ( for me ) are just amazing. Yet when his picture of the queens coronation was painted it was described as Rammel and shipped out to the British embassy in Moscow where it was forgotten until someone realised it is now worth millions. Again, another whose ideas were represented by a certain level of skill.

How do you know what skill level these artists have???

i would suggest a very high level. all will be accomplished at painting, drawing, sculpture and photography at least and more. all would have O and A level art, a years foundation course and art school or University degrees.

As i mentioned i know someone that won a turner prize few years ago and when i saw her quite a bit she was a very very accomplished painter..
 
How do you know what skill level these artists have???

i would suggest a very high level. all will be accomplished at painting, drawing, sculpture and photography at least and more. all would have O and A level art, a years foundation course and art school or University degrees.

As i mentioned i know someone that won a turner prize few years ago and when i saw her quite a bit she was a very very accomplished painter..

Patrick I don't know what skill level they have, but the finished article to me looks like they don't have a great deal of it which is what I suggested. Art is like cooking, anyone can do it, there are some cakes I can hold in my mouth and not want to swallow they are divine. Others I wouldn't feed to the ducks on our course.
 
As much as I agree with 99.9% of what you say, art is in the eye of the beholder. Ones mans chip shot is another mans pitch and run shot. Don't mean ones right and the other is wrong it means the one you did not chose is not for you and Helen Martens effort is deffo not for me. But the disposable culture bit I can relate to, because that would deffo not go in my recycle bin. Straight to the tip for that Rammel.
Now I may come across as thick when it comes to painting by numbers, but art was one of m my fave subjects at school and no matter what we did or what I looked at, there had to be a certain level of skill involved for me to like it and looking at most of the Turner exhibits, although the thought process may well be excellent. they look like they have the finishing skill of
" a dead elephant" to coin a phrase.
During my many visits to Italy I have found myself spending hours looking at paintings, sculptures, buildings etc for hours to an extent your day has gone. They have been credited to some of the greatest artists ever born. To be told that da Vinci may well of designed it but his apprentice minions actually spent three months for example smashing A marble block to bits to make it, is astounding. He made the 12" model and his apprentices made the actual pieces, it had to happen or he would still be alive today finishing off the pieces he designed. The turner prize short list looks like they were thought out on a Friday nice over a few bottles of red and then screwed together over the weekend over another couple of bottles of red.
So is all modern art Rammel ? no Banksy, for me is the man. His street graffiti is thought provoking. It looks like it has been thought out and there is a certain level of skill involved. His name will live on a lot longer than forgettable Turner winners.
Finally, my favourite artist of all time? L S Lowery. He is famous for his matchstick paintings, yet go to his exhibitions in Salford and some of his drawings and paintings ( for me ) are just amazing. Yet when his picture of the queens coronation was painted it was described as Rammel and shipped out to the British embassy in Moscow where it was forgotten until someone realised it is now worth millions. Again, another whose ideas were represented by a certain level of skill.

I thought it was beauty that was in the eye of the beholder?
 
Patrick I don't know what skill level they have, but the finished article to me looks like they don't have a great deal of it which is what I suggested. Art is like cooking, anyone can do it, there are some cakes I can hold in my mouth and not want to swallow they are divine. Others I wouldn't feed to the ducks on our course.

that's prob because you know Sweet FA about Art:rofl:
 
that's prob because you know Sweet FA about Art:rofl:

Could well be the case, but I like artists that have a bit of history and character, combined with a certain level of skill. Artists like Richard Salter, check him out. Forces man he is and his work ( from a bloke who knows sweet FA ) ticks a lot of boxes for me. You can see a lot of thought has gone into his work, but it is finished with a skill level. The pieces mentioned from the Turner prize would have a use at our course. The Ducks could nest in them. 🐣🐣
 
Top