When I was a student I was taken to the Tate, there were a load of flags in glass cases, they looked tattered, burnt, dusty, it looked like a holocaust aftermath preserved, it's overall impression was one of utter devastation.
When I approached it and read the words posted beneath it they were about an A4 sheet's worth of explanation that the flags had been made of coloured sand and were joined together by small pipes, and ants were introduced, and as the ants moved from flag to flag they would move the sand and merge the colours and therefore represent the world's population intermingling and global understanding and racial integration.
Great idea, except it didn't work, it didn't look like the world joining hands in racial harmony or whatever, instead it looked like a representation of the last world war held in air tight cases lest our flags collapse to dust, the ants were slowly destroying them.
It was fail because it did not visually trigger in the mind of the observer the artist's intended concept. Good art will do that, no explanation needed, even to someone with absolutely no concept of what good art is.
Whether beautiful, ugly or disturbing, good art should not require an A4 sheet of explanation to get it's point across.
Art that requires explanation, or some learned bluster to educate us of it's true deep meaning to us majority who in their ignorance obviously don't appreciate it, is not good art.
More likely it is self indulgent pretentious bullshit.
(When I approached it and read the words posted beneath it they were about an A4 sheet's worth of explanation that the flags had been made of coloured sand and were joined together by small pipes, and ants were introduced, and as the ants moved from flag to flag they would move the sand and merge the colours and therefore represent the world's population intermingling and global understanding and racial integration.
Great idea, except it didn't work, it didn't look like the world joining hands in racial harmony or whatever, instead it looked like a representation of the last world war held in air tight cases lest our flags collapse to dust, the ants were slowly destroying them.
It was fail because it did not visually trigger in the mind of the observer the artist's intended concept. Good art will do that, no explanation needed, even to someone with absolutely no concept of what good art is.
Whether beautiful, ugly or disturbing, good art should not require an A4 sheet of explanation to get it's point across.
Art that requires explanation, or some learned bluster to educate us of it's true deep meaning to us majority who in their ignorance obviously don't appreciate it, is not good art.
More likely it is self indulgent pretentious bullshit.
..wil,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:52,
archived)
I almost agreeI'm not sure where this idea that art can't be art without something to explain it came from. Why not? Aren't there some concepts that we cannot express simply within a single image. That would point surely to a very simple brain.
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:59,
archived)
Visual concepts that cannot be expressed within a single imageis also The Beano, so where does that leave us?
( ..wil,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:13,
archived)
Digesting Beano for art.Several have done so already.
Design is a favorite food of art.
(Design is a favorite food of art.
Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:26,
archived)
Is the Beano art pre-digestion?Or do you want to make a distinction here, and if so, what?
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:35,
archived)
As whole its not even that.It's the translation layer that the artist
does in creating that forms it. Sand is not
pre-bronze-casting-negative-stuff. Its part
in the process may not even remain in the
work when you see it.
(does in creating that forms it. Sand is not
pre-bronze-casting-negative-stuff. Its part
in the process may not even remain in the
work when you see it.
Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:40,
archived)
I just meant "why isn't the Beano art then"or if you prefer, "why isn't the Beano good art".
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:52,
archived)
Some moments they've gotten close.There are a few pannels, here and there,
that are staggering. But for the most
part, it is lower than TOAP as they
have the tools and brains to do more.
But then it would not be what it is,
a quick & dirty weekly comic, anymore.
(that are staggering. But for the most
part, it is lower than TOAP as they
have the tools and brains to do more.
But then it would not be what it is,
a quick & dirty weekly comic, anymore.
Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:06,
archived)
Ha, how dare you get back to the original argument, I was talking here.Alright, I agree with you. Although the thing with the ants sounds awesome. As an ant colony, I mean.
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:02,
archived)
YeahIt does sound cool. It's been nice to have this discussion. Thank you. Normally I ahve to argue with my Dad who thinks that everything less literal than Turner is shit. Thank you.
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:07,
archived)
I think it's even better if it does something completely different to what the artist intended.He was trying to make a point of how much better it would be if everyone intermingled.
What it showed was a destruction of identity, turning a bunch of beautiful flags into some horrible shit.
(What it showed was a destruction of identity, turning a bunch of beautiful flags into some horrible shit.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:24,
archived)