|
Post by thecreep on Jul 31, 2009 18:49:51 GMT -8
So I was just thinking about this and I'm curious why people want critics in this scene (I'm genuinely interested). Do you think in the age of internet that they are really a valid force anymore? Do you want someone to tell you what to buy? Do you really want someone outside this scene telling you what is "good" and what is not? What if you really love something they denigrate? How would you feel about that? Or do you just want someone to stand up and call bs on the more derivative work openly (because it sure gets called out behind closed doors), or point out artistic references that the average person might not know? Do you feel that criticism would propel the "scene" forward...or would artists just start bending over to please the critics (which equals artistic death)? Curious what people thoughts are. Well I think there are a few points to this really. For myself, being an art historian and writing for a few blogs that like many others pretty much stick to the "Hey so and so has new art, check it out", or "So and so has new prints, check them out" format, is not only killing me inside but is also a waste of years of education. It doesn't take a masters or PhD in art history to do this, you don't even really need to take an art class. Just start a blog and get writing. I have heard from many people that they would love to read some more in-depth articles that are focused on this scene. I myself have many paintings that I would love to talk about, but I end up having to stick with having discussions about art from previous eras at school. I also think people get defensive when they hear the word "criticism", pretty much thinking it will all just be negative. Formal art criticism is not just telling people what to buy, what looks great and so on. I mean if you think about, thats what all these sites are doing right now anyway. They all tell the readers what is good, what is "hot" and what shows will knock their socks off. There is very little writing if any that provokes the readers to think, something that will even work up a conversation. Look what the Sam Flores "debacle" has done. Imagine something with as much involvement, that was positive. I worry about the idea that people dont seem to have the urge to talk about the works being created, and seem just happy enough to share images of the works in their homes and nothing more. Are these paintings not deep enough to spark debate/conversation? Finally, if art someone likes is denigrated and that causes them to dislike the work, then they are swayed far too easily. Most of the time when someone disagrees with what you may like, or not like, a conversation or debate comes of it. Even if you dont change the persons mind, both sides will have strengthened their views simply from talking about it. As opposed to all the back-slapping and nodding that is going on instead. I also dont think critics will cause "artistic death". If anything is going to cause artistic death, its the fans or galleries as well as the artists themselves just giving up. I'm sure many artists are afraid of trying new things because they worry of losing fans that attached themselves to the artists style, or galleries that began to sell their work for the same reason. Could this by why we see some artists with portfolios that look like paintings that are far too similar? Take a look at how many artists have overcome negative reviews, and are now filling art history books. Never before has a critic said something negative that caused the scene to collapse. If anything, critics often strengthen the scene. The earliest example is the critics during the 80's that were vicious, yet Basquiat, Eric Fischl, David Salle and more did extremely well and their art is still strong today. If we continue to just write general info on this scene, information that anyone could write. If there isn't anyone that will spark conversation based on the works, then all we really are doing is talking about products. Products that might make a person happy, nostalgic or so on, but nonetheless products that are not worth talking about. Not worth breaking down, connecting to art throughout the ages and quite possibly making people think a little differently about the world around them. I think this is why most contemporary art course have no textbooks, just small pamphlets. As a few professors I have had in this area have said, "there is little writing about these works, so you have to make due with what we have", and this goes back to the mid 80's. Why would there be any courses teaching the works we see in this scene, if we still haven't been able to properly build up courses that deal with art from the 80's till now?
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Aug 1, 2009 0:02:11 GMT -8
i think that a lot of us are guilty of making the scene a little self congratulatory. giving nods to the good, the hip, and the new, but choosing not to make comment on the the wrong, the derivative and the downright awful. i'd love to see more open and critical discussion, and think that the last few days on this board has seen a different level of discussion from some of the usual back slapping and 'omg, that's so cool' type involvement. i'd love to see this scene have it's respected critics and critical analysis, and think that as it continues to gather momentum and acceptance, then more of this will take place. the scene inspires and influences people who are within. josh, i'm genuinely looking forward to seeing you heading in the direction you discuss above. in 20 years time, what record will there be of what is happening now if people like yourself don't take this route? don't you think it will be great that maybe in the future other art history students maybe referencing titles like 'pop surrealism' and 'the upset'. it's necessary for more writing to be preserved so that we can capture the feeling of the time. with regards to 'criticism' and being a 'critic', i think you earn your badge as you progress in your endeavours and your writing becomes respected further. you have the gun, and have deptutised yourself. go out and be sherrif! one thing we can all do though is stand up and be counted. make the discussion on places like artchival worthwhile and open the floor for debate, not just 'omg!...' one of things i enjoy about this scene the most is the punk spirit and inclusivity that it brings. everyone plays a part. everyone is involved - in different capacities of course. we are all guardians or stewards of the scene in some way, shape or form. how often have we bought pieces of artwork based purely on the aesthetic? i know i have in the past. thinking back recently, how much have i spent on art, when i fully understand what the artist was trying to communicate to me? scary. if i feel i don't understand the message i find that most artists are willing to help in describing what they are trying to articulate in their work. in more recent times, i've been trying to understand the message before pulling the trigger. maybe there is more ability to do that now than there was 2 years ago when you better be quick or the whole show had sold out instantly... recently i was dropping a large chunk of change on a painting and i had a choice between a few pieces. i loved the aesthetic of each, and had my own understanding of what each one meant to me. to talk it through with the insightful gallery owner helped me make up my mind as he had discussed the meaning of each piece in the show with the artist previously. i think we need more people with the ability to illuminate to be the beacons. one thing that i often notice on boards like this any many others is when someone says something slightly controversial, they might end the sentance with '...imho' '...my 2 cents' etc. yes - of course it is your opinion. no need to hide behind a barrier. let's see more justification for what our opinion actually is, but don't be afraid to share it. it will generate worthy discussion and we all might learn to look at things more objectively. all just imho, of course. j/k
|
|
|
Post by hector23 on Aug 1, 2009 10:25:21 GMT -8
nice one svenman.
"one of things i enjoy about this scene the most is the punk spirit and inclusivity that it brings. everyone plays a part. everyone is involved "
this was what drew me to hardcorein the 80s, then the DIY rave movement in the 90s and has seemed a bit lost in the attempt to snag then next big thing in this scene recently
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Aug 1, 2009 11:18:05 GMT -8
me too. h/c from the late 80's onwards. i think a lot of people involved here have the same ideals / spirit.
|
|
|
Post by gildoinc on Aug 1, 2009 11:33:48 GMT -8
i think that a lot of us are guilty of making the scene a little self congratulatory. giving nods to the good, the hip, and the new, but choosing not to make comment on the the wrong, the derivative and the downright awful. I'd love to see more open and critical discussion, and think that the last few days on this board has seen a different level of discussion from some of the usual back slapping and 'omg, that's so cool' type involvement. I really hope that this board moves in a direction were members can express opinions and openly discuss the work and the genre that we are all so passionate about. I do want to point out that since I signed up there have definitely been members who have tried to initiate discussion about artists, pieces, shows, etc. But unfortunately because - as someone aptly said earlier - collectors often defend the artists they collect, these discussions have never gone anywhere - they become attacks or are quickly stifled. I think before we pat ourselves on the back and say that we are getting to a point were we can have these discussions let's wait until we actually do have them. We all agree that what Flores did was wrong - fine, but we certainly did not have any real productive conversations about Tin a couple of months back. Criticism is hard. It hard to give and even harder to receive. There is an incredible amount of Sh-t work out there that people are spending their money on. Whether they are buying it because they love it (the reason they should be buying it) or because they think that they have stumbled onto something that will one day be very lucrative for them (the wrong reason to collect) they are likely going to defend what they have purchased, the gallery they bought it from, etc, when someone else tells them that what you think is wonderful is crap. I think to avoid this we have to make sure that we have conversations about why work is good or bad, why an artist is original or not, if we simply go from back slapping "that is wonderful" to simply saying "that sucks", we are just going to have a lot of unhappy members and not a lot of productive and healthy growth in the forum or the genre. I am looking forward to using the board as a place for lively, healthy and INFORMED discussions. I just think we should let it happen before we get too excited that it is already happening.
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Aug 1, 2009 12:54:20 GMT -8
fair point on absolutely everything you say gildoinc.
i'm not saying anything has changed overnight here, and i'm not at all saying we are in a bad place at the moment, but simply that people are coming out and discussing the issues - look at meatbag's comment in the other derivative work thread about greg gossell - he posted something, but admitted that he thought he would get shit for saying it. it shouldn't be like that. as long as we can justify what we say, lets air it.
i think the point you make about the recent tin thread should be explianed a little from my perspective. i have no axe to grind here at all. i'm happy to see an artist breaking through so fast. go tin, i thought. i don't have any of his work, btw. i don't particularly have too much of an issue with photo referencing in general either. lots of artists do it. tin said he wasn't doing it anymore and he got called on it when it became apparent he was. personally i thought that he was chaging it up from the source image enough by steampunkifying (is that a word? it is now!) the work presented in his output. what i found frustrating about that thread was that there seemed to be a bit of a vendetta going on. new accounts were set up on here just to make those points. not such a big deal - you can lurk on this board and read everything without signing up. people do that and that is of course fine. people have to make a first post at some point if they are moved enough to do so. most of you guys don't know it though that duplicate accounts were set up so that posters could troll shit 'anonymously'. the thing that left a bad taste in my mouth was one of these was a genre artist that has an id on here already. weak. if you have something to say don't hide in the trench and throw hand grenades out.
i think your point about the right reasons to collect stirs an issue with me too. i completely agree that you should buy from the heart. that is my motivation. we have to face the reality that some people do buy art in terms of investment. it may be the wrong reasons for you and i, but for some people that is their main motivation - i read on another forum recently that someone said that he was buying up every mr brainwash print 'so he could retire early'.... oh dear! you might say he's probably got it wrong on both counts there!
|
|
cgriffin
New Member
too new to be clever
Posts: 32
|
Post by cgriffin on Aug 1, 2009 19:16:10 GMT -8
I currently work in the illustration field; we have a love/hate relationship with 'reference'. What Tin does is a perfectly fair use of it, I think. Okay, sure, he snags fashion photos (which have been seen by many), and perhaps he should imagine away from the source a bit more, but the level of transformation he acquires is enough, in my book, to get him by. Public ire seems to occur when the artist either denies its use in the face of proof to the contrary, or doesn't veer far enough away from the resource to evade plagiarism.
Illustrators try to encourage the use of their OWN reference photos, and failing that, there are many free/cheap stock art sites one can peruse without issue.
I almost think referencing fashion photos and other such contemporary imagery is to be expected when your niche is pop, of any generation! Commentary on current culture is, in part, an aspect of the genre...or am I way off base here? Hmmm. Maybe this post should go in the 'Photo-referencing' thread.
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Aug 1, 2009 19:19:15 GMT -8
If you're open about the fact that you're re-interpreting someone else's images, that's pop. Hiding it is plagiarism.
|
|
cgriffin
New Member
too new to be clever
Posts: 32
|
Post by cgriffin on Aug 1, 2009 20:27:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Aug 1, 2009 21:08:47 GMT -8
Flores' "reinterpretation" is just pure laziness. There is no recontextualization or satirization going on there, so whether he did it openly or not is irrelevant. If he had come out and said he was going to reinterpret Foster's image in the beginning, it would have landed with a thud, since no one would have had the slightest idea what he was talking about. The image has to have some cultural relevance in order for it to be used as a pop reference point. For example, if Tin had come out in the beginning and said that he was painting social commentary about how fashion models are objectified, homogenized, enslaved, and turned into mechanical dolls by our culture... perhaps he could have gotten away with reinterpreting the images of famous fashion photographers. Instead, he used the images as a crutch – right down to copying the trees in the backgrounds of the photos – all the while telling his collectors that he didn't use them anymore.
|
|
cgriffin
New Member
too new to be clever
Posts: 32
|
Post by cgriffin on Aug 1, 2009 21:20:08 GMT -8
Ah! Point taken. Gotta agree. *exalts*
|
|
|
Post by muschelschubser on Aug 8, 2009 14:28:55 GMT -8
|
|