the time is passing and people hide in their sterile corner to become clean...thoughts to concentrate on the intact power of themselves...when it is clear the choice you make depends only on yourself...is it possible to go back into the chaos of people and their selves or do we want to go further to get the chaos out of our heads...what comes next...never look back?...thoughts that mass up our mind...where is the place where no thoughts have place?
Thoughty: We need the past to see where we are - right now - we need our dreams to see where we want to be.
I bears a vague resemblence to Banksy's Remixes (go here, here and here to form our own opinion).
(And I'm sure someone will say: "They've just sketched it on a postcard. My four year old son could do that" (as seen last time they did something similar in "Zilla"). Well, welcome to the world of art that has existed the past 100 - 110 years, where craft is only a secondary ruler. The 1800 century is in fact long gone and we now expect more than just "pretty" from a piece).
Anyway. Just restling the predictable and probably getting kicked in the spleen for it.
I fail to see how "anonymous" found that interpretation, but, each to their own i guess.
if art were to be devoid of craft, any bugger could do it. if you saw this in a boot sale on a piece of notepad paper, would you think "hmm, how thought provoking?", or would you wonder why on earth it was up for sale?
just because it's something simple done by a good artist doesn't mean it's any better than something simple by a bad one. it's the reputation of the artist which is spawning all these crass interpretations.
THUS. art needs a high level of craft and skill, as WELL as interpretive value to set it apart from something a four year old child could do.
Critical maybe, but you talk about the artist's reputation and where his work is shown, in a shop for instance. That speaks of context as I mentioned. Think of Duchamp's pissoir and the whole movement of ready-made, where craft is utterly removed from the artwork and is purely a matter of context. (Yes, I knooow many people's standard reply to that would be: "That wasn't art, I could do that as well, blahblah", but let's not go there... )
If your kid was to produce a piece of art, it would still be the adult's choice to exhibit it, and therefore in principle art theory it would be the adult who would have made the choices as to 1) what he would exhibit from his kid's works, 2) where and how (aka context) and why (herein lies the ideology or idea behind, again thought out by the adult).
A few years back in Denmark there was a scandal surrounding an exhibit censored by a group of art historians and jury members, where a five year old's picture went up on the wall and was called "art". This to many proved that art was degenerated since the child could splatter colours out on a canvas like aneducated artist and no one could tell the difference.
However, the response to that, from the jury members of the commitee that decided what was to be on the exhibition, was that it was actually the kid's father that could be creditted as the artist, as he firstly had decided for the kid when the picture was finished, therefore applying artistic choices to the work (but using the kid's craft as the input, telling him when to stop painting, much like the Dadaist choose external input) and choose to let it enter the censored ehibition.
Of course your opinion about craftmansship is valid, but I just don't agree about the artist's skill and craft. Naturally, if he is crafty and highly skilled he will far better be able to communicate what he wants, rather than a novice who doesn't know how to do this and that and why he's doing it in the first place, but I don't think it is the corner stone in our day and age; and I think the logic following in a such thought would be that you could hail and rate art as anything between "best" and "worst", simply by looking at the craft that goes into a piece. That would make Francis Bacon a shit artist (he couldn't paint naturlistic and all of his colours were off, someone could say) and Rembrand the best.
Anyway, (quite a few lines I've made now), all in good spirit. :o)
aye. although i'm unsure of the point being presented in this fashion. there would have to be a tie between the simplicity of the drawing and the interpretation offered.
"That's not art" type views tend to frustrate me... Art is simply expression through creative choice. What I want to know is why it is even remotely meaningful to say "I could do that" or "a five year old could do that" to discredit an artwork. Any of us, including five year olds, can be artists simply by making art. Is art ONLY valuable when nobody else in the world is capable of having made it? Artists are not some amazing alien creatures, they're just human beings like the rest of us, and we can all express ourselves through creative choices, and in doing so, be artists, whether it's perceived as such by any particular ratio of people who view it.
Technical proficiency in art (be it visual art, music, or anything else) certainly does expand what an artist is able to express, but it has little to do with what art "is". If someone is able to communicate, to express something, with a few lines of pen on a postcard, it's as effective an artwork as any other, and any dismissive stances taken by any of us can only make us more likely to ignore, miss, or not care about what the work is actually trying to communicate.
Additionally, the ease with which a person is able to decide on an interpretation of an artwork has no bearing on whether or not it is art, or even whether or not it is an effective work of art. Interpretation is a deeply personal thing, and therefore an artwork may be more or less 'effective' to different individuals.
Aaaaanyway, all that said, I like this piece a lot. To me it speaks directly of the human desire for development and "progress", which has been responsible for most of humanity's generally accepted problems, and is certainly a recurring theme in Radiohead's work. We are never satisfied with what we have, and instead of finding balance or contentment, we strive to make things "greater" - bigger, more complex, more advanced.. and in doing so we are in the constant process of making life ever more complex and more difficult for the individual.
Wow. I really enjoy reading your comments here each day, guys. There's some really thoughtful stuff going on, so thanks for posting.
This is one of my favorites in a while, it seems very ominous and inevitable, or something. And I tend to agree with hvlukas. Someone said it well a few days ago: someone else definitely could have done this, but the important thing is that they didn't.
well, yeah i tougth of banksy at first when i saw this, and in fact i was always curious of the similitudes in the intention and the ideas behind stanley's and banksy's art.
about art and craft... From a long time ago, art stoped depending on the manual skills of the artist, and it is in that point when art starts being interesting. Of course,(if you search among the modern artists) Dali had a GREAT hability with the paintrush, and still he was innovative and made a trully astonishing art. Wich means, being a great *painter* is useful and in the end it migth even help to make the work more "accesible", but in this times of modern art it is more important to be a great *artist*. Dadaism proposed an art that it's not physical, an art of the mind, and that is what art is now, when it's more important the ideas behind the piece that the piece itself. People migth like it or not, but it is what it is and in the end results, art have become so diverse, interesting and (in some way)powerfull becouse of this aproach to the *Art* concept.
about the picture itself, i keep saying that there's a lot of humour in this works (in a good way) and a really ironic feel to it.
btw, did someone else got the new taglibro issue? a really interesting and fun read :) (oh, sorry for the bad spelling and everything)
this is a story to reAD::WHEN PEOPLE rather concentrate on the artist than on the art itself ...how do you see the world?...in this anonymous space there is no reference from the artist ...so how about judging art, instead of the artist?
Art and its interpretation on a high or low level ( does it exist?) depends only on you...your thoughts and creative outcomes is simply you...so low level and high level is your own judgement...
What is a judgement? right and wrong?... personality? jugdement...prejudice...mmmh:)
to me art is something complete. it is given and can be seen...the possibility to continua the artist`s path by contributing myself...
confusing or not confusing, that is the question!
I rather right something confusing than simple in order not to loose faith. respect to the artist...i like pure people, provoking with interruptions...in between the lines sometimes...i simply like it.
I was thinking one day that one option for humans was to leave the dry land and inhabit the seas on rafts, but we stayed on shore where you fear death instead of knowing its small proportions compared to your inside growth.
amazing... its probably one of my favorites. The juxtaposition of the old and new it’s just brilliant. World without green gases emitions vs world already polluted.
When I saw this picture two paintings immediately jumped to my mind :
"Dido building Carthage, or The Rise of the Carthaginian Empire" by William Turner, which I'm sure I saw in the London National Gallery a few months ago,
but it looks even more to Claude Lorrain's "Seaport with the Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba", which is also in the National Gallery.
The first one can be seen on the Internet there : http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG498&collectionPublisherSection=work
and the second one there : http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG14&collectionPublisherSection=work
Is it even possible to see it outside of the context it is presented in? I don't think it's possible for me. I think a lot of things that can be considered art are only art because of the context. I don't think they are presenting this as art, though. They're just images that might/might not be relevant to whatever it is they are doing. But the fact that they are posting them has to say something. It does to me.
I think this fits into the whole idea of modernity, of course, hence the title. The construction of buildings without regard to existing older structures or the environment.
That said, the first thing that popped into my head was the song "And It Rained All Night" and the images of flooding and the absence of an adequate infrastructure to keep away the damage that will come from climate change.
also i was thinking.. that picture reminds me the history of the cities in Mexico.. Im from Merida, a city that have been around since the mayan culture but its name before colonization was Th'o. There is nothing to resemble the past of the city, the old buildings were thrown apart to build the new post-colonial arquitecture. The major palace now is the downtown cathedral. This phenomenom happened in almost all the big cities in Mexico.. such a shame, so much culture wiped out from earth. I think now we are suffering from the same phenomenon again. Everything is stylish and modern and flat and dry and depressing.
I'm getting something else from this drawing now. The idea of building on top of existing infrastructures, which are old and decaying, rather than starting from scratch. I'm not saying the actual buildings were built just on top of the existing ones, or are covering up, but the entire infrastructure (the drainage system, for example) was left in place and isn't adequate anymore. The concern was to make things look imposing and new, rather than trying to fix what was wrong first. And we all know the infrastructure will collapse because it's built on a faulty foundation. We can't just build on top of what's wrong and hope to fix it. We have to start from the foundation even if it means getting rid of what was in place.
t h e s h i t t y t h a t n e v e r s l e e p s
ReplyDeletethe time is passing and people hide in their sterile corner to become clean...thoughts to concentrate on the intact power of themselves...when it is clear the choice you make depends only on yourself...is it possible to go back into the chaos of people and their selves or do we want to go further to get the chaos out of our heads...what comes next...never look back?...thoughts that mass up our mind...where is the place where no thoughts have place?
ReplyDeleteThoughty:
We need the past to see where we are - right now - we need our dreams to see where we want to be.
I like this picture a lot. thank you.
I love it.
ReplyDeleteI bears a vague resemblence to Banksy's Remixes (go here, here and here to form our own opinion).
(And I'm sure someone will say:
"They've just sketched it on a postcard. My four year old son could do that" (as seen last time they did something similar in "Zilla").
Well, welcome to the world of art that has existed the past 100 - 110 years, where craft is only a secondary ruler. The 1800 century is in fact long gone and we now expect more than just "pretty" from a piece).
Anyway. Just restling the predictable and probably getting kicked in the spleen for it.
I,
enjoy this. Enormously.
I fail to see how "anonymous" found that interpretation, but, each to their own i guess.
ReplyDeleteif art were to be devoid of craft, any bugger could do it. if you saw this in a boot sale on a piece of notepad paper, would you think "hmm, how thought provoking?", or would you wonder why on earth it was up for sale?
just because it's something simple done by a good artist doesn't mean it's any better than something simple by a bad one. it's the reputation of the artist which is spawning all these crass interpretations.
THUS. art needs a high level of craft and skill, as WELL as interpretive value to set it apart from something a four year old child could do.
i'm a critical bastard ain't i?
James -
ReplyDeleteCritical maybe, but you talk about the artist's reputation and where his work is shown, in a shop for instance. That speaks of context as I mentioned.
Think of Duchamp's pissoir and the whole movement of ready-made, where craft is utterly removed from the artwork and is purely a matter of context. (Yes, I knooow many people's standard reply to that would be: "That wasn't art, I could do that as well, blahblah", but let's not go there... )
If your kid was to produce a piece of art, it would still be the adult's choice to exhibit it, and therefore in principle art theory it would be the adult who would have made the choices as to 1) what he would exhibit from his kid's works, 2) where and how (aka context) and why (herein lies the ideology or idea behind, again thought out by the adult).
A few years back in Denmark there was a scandal surrounding an exhibit censored by a group of art historians and jury members, where a five year old's picture went up on the wall and was called "art". This to many proved that art was degenerated since the child could splatter colours out on a canvas like aneducated artist and no one could tell the difference.
However, the response to that, from the jury members of the commitee that decided what was to be on the exhibition, was that it was actually the kid's father that could be creditted as the artist, as he firstly had decided for the kid when the picture was finished, therefore applying artistic choices to the work (but using the kid's craft as the input, telling him when to stop painting, much like the Dadaist choose external input) and choose to let it enter the censored ehibition.
Of course your opinion about craftmansship is valid, but I just don't agree about the artist's skill and craft. Naturally, if he is crafty and highly skilled he will far better be able to communicate what he wants, rather than a novice who doesn't know how to do this and that and why he's doing it in the first place, but I don't think it is the corner stone in our day and age; and I think the logic following in a such thought would be that you could hail and rate art as anything between "best" and "worst", simply by looking at the craft that goes into a piece. That would make Francis Bacon a shit artist (he couldn't paint naturlistic and all of his colours were off, someone could say) and Rembrand the best.
Anyway, (quite a few lines I've made now), all in good spirit. :o)
That's true, true.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the actual solution is probably a compromise between our differing standpoints. maybe...
Yeah... One could say that (in this picture presented here for instance) that simplistic execution from an artist is probably in itself a point?
ReplyDeleteaye. although i'm unsure of the point being presented in this fashion. there would have to be a tie between the simplicity of the drawing and the interpretation offered.
ReplyDeletethe boats the boats! jump in the river! or whatever. this must be works of Dr. Tchock, right?
ReplyDelete"That's not art" type views tend to frustrate me... Art is simply expression through creative choice. What I want to know is why it is even remotely meaningful to say "I could do that" or "a five year old could do that" to discredit an artwork. Any of us, including five year olds, can be artists simply by making art. Is art ONLY valuable when nobody else in the world is capable of having made it? Artists are not some amazing alien creatures, they're just human beings like the rest of us, and we can all express ourselves through creative choices, and in doing so, be artists, whether it's perceived as such by any particular ratio of people who view it.
ReplyDeleteTechnical proficiency in art (be it visual art, music, or anything else) certainly does expand what an artist is able to express, but it has little to do with what art "is". If someone is able to communicate, to express something, with a few lines of pen on a postcard, it's as effective an artwork as any other, and any dismissive stances taken by any of us can only make us more likely to ignore, miss, or not care about what the work is actually trying to communicate.
Additionally, the ease with which a person is able to decide on an interpretation of an artwork has no bearing on whether or not it is art, or even whether or not it is an effective work of art. Interpretation is a deeply personal thing, and therefore an artwork may be more or less 'effective' to different individuals.
Aaaaanyway, all that said, I like this piece a lot. To me it speaks directly of the human desire for development and "progress", which has been responsible for most of humanity's generally accepted problems, and is certainly a recurring theme in Radiohead's work. We are never satisfied with what we have, and instead of finding balance or contentment, we strive to make things "greater" - bigger, more complex, more advanced.. and in doing so we are in the constant process of making life ever more complex and more difficult for the individual.
Wow. I really enjoy reading your comments here each day, guys. There's some really thoughtful stuff going on, so thanks for posting.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my favorites in a while, it seems very ominous and inevitable, or something. And I tend to agree with hvlukas. Someone said it well a few days ago: someone else definitely could have done this, but the important thing is that they didn't.
Could the boats be there as a reference to future flooding in New York?
ReplyDeletewell, yeah i tougth of banksy at first when i saw this, and in fact i was always curious of the similitudes in the intention and the ideas behind stanley's and banksy's art.
ReplyDeleteabout art and craft... From a long time ago, art stoped depending on the manual skills of the artist, and it is in that point when art starts being interesting. Of course,(if you search among the modern artists) Dali had a GREAT hability with the paintrush, and still he was innovative and made a trully astonishing art. Wich means, being a great *painter* is useful and in the end it migth even help to make the work more "accesible", but in this times of modern art it is more important to be a great *artist*.
Dadaism proposed an art that it's not physical, an art of the mind, and that is what art is now, when it's more important the ideas behind the piece that the piece itself. People migth like it or not, but it is what it is and in the end results, art have become so diverse, interesting and (in some way)powerfull becouse of this aproach to the *Art* concept.
about the picture itself, i keep saying that there's a lot of humour in this works (in a good way) and a really ironic feel to it.
btw, did someone else got the new taglibro issue? a really interesting and fun read :) (oh, sorry for the bad spelling and everything)
this is a story to reAD::WHEN PEOPLE rather concentrate on the artist than on the art itself ...how do you see the world?...in this anonymous space there is no reference from the artist ...so how about judging art, instead of the artist?
ReplyDeleteArt and its interpretation on a high or low level ( does it exist?) depends only on you...your thoughts and creative outcomes is simply you...so low level and high level is your own judgement...
What is a judgement?
right and wrong?... personality?
jugdement...prejudice...mmmh:)
to me art is something complete. it is given and can be seen...the possibility to continua the artist`s path by contributing myself...
confusing or not confusing, that is the question!
I rather right something confusing than simple in order not to loose faith.
respect to the artist...i like pure people, provoking with interruptions...in between the lines sometimes...i simply like it.
I was thinking one day that one option for humans was to leave the dry land and inhabit the seas on rafts, but we stayed on shore where you fear death instead of knowing its small proportions compared to your inside growth.
ReplyDeleteamazing... its probably one of my favorites. The juxtaposition of the old and new it’s just brilliant. World without green gases emitions vs world already polluted.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw this picture two paintings immediately jumped to my mind :
ReplyDelete"Dido building Carthage, or The Rise of the Carthaginian Empire" by William Turner, which I'm sure I saw in the London National Gallery a few months ago,
but it looks even more to Claude Lorrain's "Seaport with the Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba", which is also in the National Gallery.
The first one can be seen on the Internet there :
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG498&collectionPublisherSection=work
and the second one there :
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG14&collectionPublisherSection=work
But it may just be my imagination ...
individual imagination is the new up.
ReplyDeleteI agree, last anonymous.
ReplyDeleteIs it even possible to see it outside of the context it is presented in? I don't think it's possible for me. I think a lot of things that can be considered art are only art because of the context. I don't think they are presenting this as art, though. They're just images that might/might not be relevant to whatever it is they are doing. But the fact that they are posting them has to say something. It does to me.
ReplyDeleteI think this fits into the whole idea of modernity, of course, hence the title. The construction of buildings without regard to existing older structures or the environment.
That said, the first thing that popped into my head was the song "And It Rained All Night" and the images of flooding and the absence of an adequate infrastructure to keep away the damage that will come from climate change.
It isn't just your imagination, the interpreter. I thought of the Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba too. :)
ReplyDeleteIt also reminded me of Thomas Cole's series "The Course of Empire."
http://pasleybrothers.com/jefferson/course_of_empire.htm
radiohead endin' again having finally caught up on some recordin
ReplyDeletei have a cd of what we;'ve done...
and you have another three weeks yet.
(sorry)
i must burn it, after taking an year break from life
that always makes me nervous
hope you're well
yours
Thom
Indeed, it could well be some Turner or eighteenth-century engraving (example : http://www.goodallartists.ca/Turner._London_Bridge.jpg)
ReplyDeleteIt also reminds me of Stanley Donwood's London views for The Eraser.
I'm really curious to know which city it is and who's the author of the drawing. Any engravings specialist around ?
Curiosity is the new up
i wish that was really thom...
ReplyDeletealso i was thinking.. that picture reminds me the history of the cities in Mexico.. Im from Merida, a city that have been around since the mayan culture but its name before colonization was Th'o. There is nothing to resemble the past of the city, the old buildings were thrown apart to build the new post-colonial arquitecture. The major palace now is the downtown cathedral. This phenomenom happened in almost all the big cities in Mexico.. such a shame, so much culture wiped out from earth. I think now we are suffering from the same phenomenon again. Everything is stylish and modern and flat and dry and depressing.
ReplyDeleteHaha, poor Thom can't win. We see him where he is not and then we deny him when he does visit us.
ReplyDelete...Life is funny that way
:)
ggw
Awesome. That's the style i like. Your art is great.
ReplyDeleteZion.
I'm getting something else from this drawing now. The idea of building on top of existing infrastructures, which are old and decaying, rather than starting from scratch. I'm not saying the actual buildings were built just on top of the existing ones, or are covering up, but the entire infrastructure (the drainage system, for example) was left in place and isn't adequate anymore. The concern was to make things look imposing and new, rather than trying to fix what was wrong first. And we all know the infrastructure will collapse because it's built on a faulty foundation. We can't just build on top of what's wrong and hope to fix it. We have to start from the foundation even if it means getting rid of what was in place.
ReplyDelete