Discussion in 'Films, Music and All Things Artsy' started by GLOCK09, Jun 30, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Text book landing.
Good opportuinity for cuts, Mr Osborne. The arty types are all Lefties so they wil never vote for you anyway, so cut them off at the legs.
I saw this and i really liked it. I may dabble in art but I am not a worthless pariah.
I do not like installations as a rule but I don't think this is an installation. Installations are supposedly about the interaction between the viewer and the exhibit, i think it's a bit try hard and with a dash of emperor's new clothes thrown in, they don't do it for me.
I would argue that this is not an installation because the aircraft are there to be looked at and studied in their own right and they are beautiful machines. They are exhibits. Staring up the nose of the harrier makes you feel impossibly small but that doesn't make it an installation. Not to me, I'd have to hate it if it did...
Also, it's not an example of conceptual art at it's worst. In conceptual art the focus is not the exhibit but the idea it represents (I recently saw a video of a man leading a line of sheep around a flagpole in a square where people congregate to protest; the idea that the people were sheep under a political banner. the idea was interesting but the video was not.)
In this exhibition the planes are the focus with an underlying idea, underlying likening to the animals they were named after. It's not conceptual art.
I liked it. I like the comparisons with the bird of prey and now they are decommissioned they are hung up like a hunted bird. I liked the belly up Jaguar which is beautifully reflected and is very nice to draw.
I also liked how she described her appreciation of fighter planes throughout her life and how she was inspired by seeing them in her childhood.
If people want to see planes as they are used there are a number places they can visit to appreciate them, this was a nice idea so stop being so precious.
Lazy? Most definately.
What is an original piece of art? Monet's endless reproduction of his beloved waterlilies, Cezanne's fascination with Mont Sainte-Victoire? Seems to me it becomes original and worthwhile when the viewer is moved by the artform they are viewing. Installation art may not be to everyone's taste but to me an artist succeeds by creating an original viewpoint of an object out of its natural environment.
Any woman who came up with a work entitled "Arsewoman in Wonderland" can't be all that bad!
Looks like I'll have to wander up there and take a gander!
i got the impression that the artist admired the aircraft but I think I see what you're saying, you seem to think that she's stripped them of their dignity in some way. Which is interesting.
The jaguar reflects quite beautifully on the stone. I daren't mention how I admired it's 'lines'
Be fair, these are big spaces. To create an original sculpture to occupy that space would take months, if not years and people like the fact that the dispalys in the Duveen Gallery and the Turbine Hall change frequently. It adds interest, it's something new for them to market and it also gives more artist the chance to have their work seen by the masses. I've seen some utter shite in there, this display is, in my opinion, one of their better ones.
People can go to the Imperial War Museum, the RAF Museum or Fleet Air Arm Museum if they want to admire planes, I think her use of these aircraft was interesting and how many people do you think have had the chance to admire them in their natural environment?
Anyway, if found art was good enough for Picabia, why do you turn your nose up at it?
What she said. I think it's a bit pompous and precious to regard these forms as 'diminished'. That's slightly akin to the occasional whine on arrse of civvies wearing combats. Get over it.
They are rather well photographed and I find the chrome jag and harrier rather provoking. Lazy, perhaps - but a lot of art is. Frankly I do also see some similies to wildlife; the SHAR hung as it is does resemble a dead shark hung by the tail.
I hope the gallery doesn't reveal the tail numbers - that'll keep the bloody spotters guessing. If ever there was a crowd of 'precious' obsessives...
A lot better than much art I have seen recently such as Tate Modern in St Ives last week. One rather good Mondrian, some rather good sculpture, some crap sofas and a bloody Rothko (never understood his value to the productive flow).
Well, I like it. It pleases my eye and surely that is what art is designed to do? Some will like it, some will not and so life goes on
Which goes to show how art is subjective (and necessarily so) - I think that Rothko is a cynical bluffer and was the right face at the right time to get away with muddy and uninspiring squares on canvas.
Separate names with a comma.