If you could go to an exhibition of just one artist, who would it be?

[Moksha]

Imagine an exhibition of all the paintings (or statues...or whatever) of just one artist, collected together from various galleries. You can wander around on your own all day (or with a friend) and be alone with the work. But it can only be one aritist. Who would you choose?

I think I would choose Bruegel, or maybe Vermeer. If I couldn’t have either of them, then Caravaggio.

[Dougella]

Louise Bourgeois and I've already done it, years ago there was an exhibition of her work at Tate Modern

[limey123]

EDVARD MUNCH (n.b. NOT pronounced like English "munch"!; actually I have been to Munchmuseet in Oslo)

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Nanuq

Maybe David Hockney..

I think his work is uplifting, or Frida Kahlo, or Gustav Klimt, or Paul Gauguin, or Egon Shciele...

I know, you said one..

Hockney is a good one. I would love to see The Splash (think that’s the title )

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by limey123

EDVARD MUNCH (n.b. NOT pronounced like English "munch"!; actually I have been to Munchmuseet in Oslo)

It would be amazing to see the scream face to face. Actually, Munch would have made a good official artist for SAUK, with Larkin as our poet laureate

[Orwell20]

I love the late Victorians, like Waterhouse, Lord Leighton and Whistler. But if I could only have one artist, then maybe Matisse or Turner. My interest in art stops around the middle of the 20th century. As for Tracey Emin’s unmade bed, or that arrogant prat Damian Hurst, there is more beauty in my local florists. Whenever I go to somewhere like The National Gallery and look at a Rembrandt or Caravaggio, I come out feeling warm, happy and full. I have only been to Tate Modern once, and I came out feeling empty and flat. Even the building is ugly.

[limey123]

Originally Posted by Moksha

It would be amazing to see the scream face to face. Actually, Munch would have made a good official artist for SAUK, with Larkin as our poet laureate

Seen it! Like the Mona Lisa, it's not that big. Munch is easily best known for Skrik, but he painted many other brilliant works as well.

And I agree Larkin and Munch for SAUK, the perfect match!

Apparently Munch once said: "uten livsangst og sykdom ville jeg vært som et skip uten ror" (Without anxiety and illness, I should have been like a ship without a rudder).

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Jimmy77

I love the late Victorians, like Waterhouse, Lord Leighton and Whistler. But if I could only have one artist, then maybe Matisse or Turner. My interest in art stops around the middle of the 20th century. As for Tracey Emin’s unmade bed, or that arrogant prat Damian Hurst, there is more beauty in my local florists. Whenever I go to somewhere like The National Gallery and look at a Rembrandt or Caravaggio, I come out feeling warm, happy and full. I have only been to Tate Modern once, and I came out feeling empty and flat. Even the building is ugly.

BBC4 have been repeating some old Clive James comedy clips since his death, and they recently showed one where he went to an exhibit of contemporary art in New York. Oh god, what total and utter pretentious w*nk!! One exhibit (which took up a whole room and was curtained off) involved three human tongues pickled in huge jars, with a recording in the background of women crying. Apparently, it represented the abuse of women by men down the centuries. I mean, what...the...f**k. If you gathered together a load of sixth formers, gave them some clay and jars and then told them to get in groups and come up with something to represent the abuse of women, they'd probably have done the same, or better, within a hour. And I agree about the buildings. Tate Modern is hideous, like virtually everything else modern artists and architects produce, so I guess it is appropriate for what's inside. Give me the National Gallery any day.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Nanuq

I'm a big fan of Japanese art and Indian miniatures, I saw a lovely exhibition of Japanese woodblock prints last year.

What do you think of the older stuff - I mean the Chinese and Japanese prints? Some of them are breathtakingly beautiful, especially the watery images of bamboo shoots and distant, misty mountains. I once cut out and laminated a copy of a Japanese print of a woman walking by a river in the snow. She is carrying an umbrella, and it looks like night time. It's literally one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen.

[Dougella]

Originally Posted by Moksha

BBC4 have been repeating some old Clive James comedy clips since his death, and they recently showed one where he went to an exhibit of contemporary art in New York. Oh god, what total and utter pretentious w*nk!! One exhibit (which took up a whole room and was curtained off) involved three human tongues pickled in huge jars, with a recording in the background of women crying. Apparently, it represented the abuse of women by men down the centuries. I mean, what...the...f**k. If you gathered together a load of sixth formers, gave them some clay and jars and then told them to get in groups and come up with something to represent the abuse of women, they'd probably have done the same, or better, within a hour. And I agree about the buildings. Tate Modern is hideous, like virtually everything else modern artists and architects produce, so I guess it is appropriate for what's inside. Give me the National Gallery any day.

A lot of artwork is very subjective, just because you don't identify with something doesn't mean that it's rubbish or meaningless.
I actually don't like Tate Modern much as a building because it makes me feel weird and dizzy (or atleast it used to, I haven't been there for years) and it's airless and odd.

[Pink*Lady]

Jack Vettriano.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Dougella

A lot of artwork is very subjective, just because you don't identify with something doesn't mean that it's rubbish or meaningless.

I am willing to accept that I shouldn't have the final say on every work of art ever produced. However, I'm dubious about this "it's all subjective" idea. Where do you stop? Does everyone's opinion matter as much as everyone else's? To a sadistic paedophile, a beaten and tortured child is a beautiful sight. I don't believe everyone's opinion is as significant as everyone else's. My opinion of Proust isn't as valuable as the professor of French literature at Cambridge. Some people are stupid, and some are brilliant. If the cleverest people generally agree that Shakespeare or Beethoven or Vermeer are geniuses, then I think we should pay attention. Unfortunately, art is increasingly judged by whether or not it is 'woke' enough, and also by who produced it (if it was a straight white male with conservative opinions, god help him). This has been abetted by liberal-left academics who should know better.

I have no idea what art is. I wouldn't have a clue how to define it. But if it's anything, it's surely an attempt to create beauty. I can't back that up. Like I said, no one really knows what art is. I can only go by my gut response. When I look at Tracey Emin's tent, with the names of everyone she's slept with, I feel empty, bored, irritated and flat. It doesn't move me, it doesn't warm or thrill me, it doesn't fill my mind with interesting new ideas, it doesn't make me see reality in a new way. In fact, a lot of modern art is so hideous it makes the world seem uglier, darker and drearier. I don't mean art should always be positive (though I do admire life-affirming artists more than life-denying ones - it's easier to say no to life than yes), but it should be beautiful. T S Eliot's Wasteland, for example, or Larkin's poetry, is dark and gloomy. It's also life-denying. But it's so beautiful that I feel better for reading it. A lot of modern art manages to be not only depressing but ugly. And modern art excludes people. You need a degree in art history to work out what the hell someone like Damien Hurst is doing. But anyone can see the depth, beauty and meaning in Rembrandt's self-portraits.

[choirgirl]

^Exactly. It is the old 'what is the purpose of art' debate. I'm going to bow out because I'm not well versed in the visual arts, except to say that I like the Tate Modern building. When I first went there it made me appreciate modern architecture for the first time.

[Dougella]

Originally Posted by Moksha

I am willing to accept that I shouldn't have the final say on every work of art ever produced. However, I'm dubious about this "it's all subjective" idea. Where do you stop? Does everyone's opinion matter as much as everyone else's? To a sadistic paedophile, a beaten and tortured child is a beautiful sight. I don't believe everyone's opinion is as significant as everyone else's. My opinion of Proust isn't as valuable as the professor of French literature at Cambridge. Some people are stupid, and some are brilliant. If the cleverest people generally agree that Shakespeare or Beethoven or Vermeer are geniuses, then I think we should pay attention. Unfortunately, art is increasingly judged by whether or not it is 'woke' enough, and also by who produced it (if it was a straight white male with conservative opinions, god help him). This has been abetted by liberal-left academics who should know better.

I have no idea what art is. I wouldn't have a clue how to define it. But if it's anything, it's surely an attempt to create beauty. I can't back that up. Like I said, no one really knows what art is. I can only go by my gut response. When I look at Tracey Emin's tent, with the names of everyone she's slept with, I feel empty, bored, irritated and flat. It doesn't move me, it doesn't warm or thrill me, it doesn't fill my mind with interesting new ideas, it doesn't make me see reality in a new way. In fact, a lot of modern art is so hideous it makes the world seem uglier, darker and drearier. I don't mean art should always be positive (though I do admire life-affirming artists more than life-denying ones - it's easier to say no to life than yes), but it should be beautiful. T S Eliot's Wasteland, for example, or Larkin's poetry, is dark and gloomy. It's also life-denying. But it's so beautiful that I feel better for reading it. A lot of modern art manages to be not only depressing but ugly. And modern art excludes people. You need a degree in art history to work out what the hell someone like Damien Hurst is doing. But anyone can see the depth, beauty and meaning in Rembrandt's self-portraits.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to take the discussion in that extreme direction! But leaving sadistic paedophiles aside, yes your opinion is valid as the person next to you in the art gallery and everyone else's. It's the same as other art forms, literature, music, theatre etc, people have their own likes and dislikes and people view things differently because of their own life experiences and tastes.

I'm not sure how you define intelligence. People who have studied a particular subject and made their career of analyzing particular works will ofcourse be experts , but does that mean that those people are fundementally more intelligent than others, no it doesn't in my opinion. A lot of artwork is about particular experiences, does that mean that working class people, or marginalised people shouldn't make artwork or that they can never be geniuses, no I don't thinks so at all.


No, actually not all art is about beauty, infact some art works are meant to be ugly, they might make people uncomfortable, they might be frightening, they might be saddening, they might be humourous, they might be silly.

You feel nothing looking at Tracey Emins tent because it doesn't resonate with you, and that's ok, but that doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with anyone else. That particular work is about intimacy.

[Mr. Nobody]

Robert Millais, or perhaps Lawrence Alma Tadema,

to be honest,. there's thousands of artist's work I'd love to see, but I've never been great at art history or being up with knowing artist's names,

I love most art in general and actually quite like visiting the annual art school degree shows in Scotland,. there's so much really good stuff to see,. and it's free

I quite like seeing high school end of year art shows too,. I just find the variety of people's work amazing.

[Jen.]

Diane Arbus or Mary Ellen Mark.

[Copernicium]

If it was just one artist, then probably Vermeer. I find it sort of fascinating to peer into images that are as good as photographs from the 1600s. Plus he painted Girl With A Pearl Earring, which is a bit of a showstopper.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Dougella

I'm not sure why you felt the need to take the discussion in that extreme direction!

But my point is where do you stop? In the 19th century, you had a hideously rigid, cruel, hierarchical society, in which everyone was ranked according to race, gender and class. That was challenged in the 20th century, but the baby boomers took it way too far (Ken Wilber wrote a book on this), so that we now live in a society in which ANY kind of hierarchy is frowned upon. It's very immature. But then the boomer generation itself never really grew up (that is Wilber's argument anyway)

I'm not sure how you define intelligence. People who have studied a particular subject and made their career of analyzing particular works will of course be experts , but does that mean that those people are fundementally more intelligent than others, no it doesn't in my opinion. A lot of artwork is about particular experiences, does that mean that working class people, or marginalised people shouldn't make artwork or that they can never be geniuses, no I don't thinks so at all

.

I certainly think intelligence should be more broadly defined than it is, and that it should include things like empathy, humour, emotional intelligence, etc. And it's true that intelligence, like art, is difficult to pin down. But that doesn't mean there aren't differences. We all know that some people have exceptional minds. And most of us know them when we see or meet them. It's silly to pretend otherwise. If the majority of these brilliant people agree that Shakepeare, Milton, Tolstoy and Dante are the supreme writers (which they do), we should listen. And if the majority of them agree that Vermeer, Rembrandt and Picasso are the supreme painters, again, we ought to listen. Of course working class and marginalized people can produce great art. They have (Blake came from a poor family, and so did D H Lawrence and Picasso), but we now have a situation where people are winning competitions or being taught in universities just because they are from an ethnic minority, or from a poor or deprived background. The recent winner of the T S Eliot prize, for example, wasn't the best poet, and everyone knew he wasn't. But he was black and his poems were about Grenfell and the Windrush scandal, so he ticked the right boxes and won the prize. I have nothing against him by the way. I actually really like his stuff, especially his poem 'portable paradise', but he shouldn't have won.

No, actually not all art is about beauty, in fact some art works are meant to be ugly, they might make people uncomfortable, they might be frightening, they might be saddening, they might be humourous, they might be silly.

You feel nothing looking at Tracey Emins tent because it doesn't resonate with you, and that's ok, but that doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with anyone else. That particular work is about intimacy

You could certainly argue that. It had never really occured to me before, but I guess there is no reason art should be beautiful. Some believe originality is the most important thing. But art can be frightening, saddening, silly and humourous and still be beautiful.

[Dougella]

^ Out of interest are there any female writers, or artists, that you think are agreed on as being brilliant?


No-one is is winning competitions or getting into university JUST BECAUSE they are from an ethnic minority background or a poor background, it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest they are.

So you think the guy's poetry is good, you even admit that you like it....but you think he shouldn't have won. Don't you think that Grenfell and Windrush are some of the most important issues of recent years and evidence of systemic and institutional racism and classism? Or would you just prefer that a white person had won


Well look at that, it had never occured to you before, I'm glad I managed to teach you something! (I did actually study art at university, but I don't think that you need a degree to appreciate of understand art and I hate snobbery in the art world as much I hate snobbery about literature or music.)

[Jen.]

Originally Posted by Moksha

we now have a situation where people are winning competitions or being taught in universities just because they are from an ethnic minority, or from a poor or deprived background. The recent winner of the T S Eliot prize, for example, wasn't the best poet, and everyone knew he wasn't. But he was black and his poems were about Grenfell and the Windrush scandal, so he ticked the right boxes and won the prize. I have nothing against him by the way. I actually really like his stuff, especially his poem 'portable paradise', but he shouldn't have won.

Luckily judging panels are the ones who decide what should be rewarded, and it isn't down to some paranoid, probably racist peanut gallery to decide. Winners have become more diverse in recent years because judging panels have become more diverse. If you always have a panel of white men then you'll always have mostly white men winning (as is historically proven). This might be preferable to someone like you, but thankfully prizes such as this have decided to avoid limiting themselves in such a way.

If a certain group think something that wins isn't worthy, they moan for a bit and move on. If they think something that wins isn't worthy and it was created by a woman and/or someone who isn't white, they often point to those characteristics being the reason why that person won and don't just consider that they have different tastes to the judges. Imagine being one of those winners though, or someone like them, where every achievement is met with suspicion. They might as well not bother, eh?

[Copernicium]

Originally Posted by Jen.

Imagine being one of those winners though, or someone like them, where every achievement is met with suspicion. They might as well not bother, eh?

Do you think people are ever awarded prizes for reasons other than merit?

[Jen.]

Originally Posted by Copernicium

Do you think people are ever awarded prizes for reasons other than merit?

Do you think it's right to assume that's the case every time simply based on disagreeing with who the chosen winner was?

Should winners who aren't white have to be given the okay by a white panel to convince bigots that there wasn't anything fishy going on?

White person wins = "I don't agree with that choice, the judges are idiots."
Non-white person wins = "I don't agree with that choice, they were only chosen because they're not white."

That's how it usually goes. Makes you wonder what the motivation is there.

[Dougella]

^^ What weird question to pose in the middle of this particular discussion. Are you trying to suggest that there might have been instances where people were awarded prizes for reasons not purely based on merit, then saying that people get into university and win prizes because of their ethnic background or their class background must be absolutely fine?!



It seems like the most insulting thing ever to me for people (probably white and middle class, judgi g by this conversation) to point at people not like themselves and go "well that person didn't really earn their place here or didn't really deserve that award, they just got it because they ticked a certain box

[Copernicium]

Originally Posted by Dougella

^^ What weird question to pose in the middle of this particular discussion. Are you trying to suggest that there might have been instances where people were awarded prizes for reasons not purely based on merit, then saying that people get into university and win prizes because of their ethnic background or their class background must be absolutely fine?!

It's a completely obvious question. Moksha suggested that people were awarded prizes for reasons other than pure merit. Jen threw a load of smears and insults and generally had a tantrum. So I asked her is she thought people were ever awarded prizes for reasons other than merit. That gave her lots of room to discuss the issue from all angles. Instead she just carried on where she left off.

The only weird thing is the reaction.

It seems like the most insulting thing ever to me for people (probably white and middle class, judgi g by this conversation) to point at people not like themselves and go "well that person didn't really earn their place here or didn't really deserve that award, they just got it because they ticked a certain box

So do you think people are ever awarded prizes for reasons other than merit? Ever?

[Consolida]

I've not had the chance to follow this thread so can't contribute to the discussion but in response to the title...

I find it difficult to pick ONE Artist or style of Art as there are so many genres that I like for many different reasons

When I visited the Royal Academy of Art as part of an OU Art history course I gained a real appreciation for the Pre-Raphaelite Artists such as William Holman Hunt, John Everett Millais and Dante Gabriel Rossetti. I like the way their paintings are littered with literary details and mythological symbols that are only revealed once you properly 'read' the painting. The Pre-Raphaelites shocked the moralistic Victorian audience at the time although why an innocent nutcracker would cause quite such a stir is beyond me.

In the 90's I went to an exhibition in London that was showing the best pieces from every period of Claude Monet’s working life. Impressionistic Art isn't a particular favourite of mine but it was quite something to see so many of Monet's paintings all in one place. I like the way such paintings are a incomprehensible mess of colour and brushstrokes close up but from afar transformed into a dramatic landscape. Turner's landscapes and sea-capes have the same wonderful effect.

I have to admit my visit to the Tate Modern left me feeling very underwhelmed. I appreciate all types of Art, even if I might not like it, but most of the work by the likes of Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst leave me cold. How can you get excited about an unmade bed or a pickled cow? I remember some security person at the Tate Modern telling me off for walking across a pile of builders rubble instead of around. Well, I didn't know it was part of an Art installation

These days I spend way too long looking online at the creative works of lesser known local Artists. Their work may never make it onto the walls of some great exhibition but there are so many brilliant Artists out there to discover. At the moment I'm enjoying the artwork of Louisa O'hara who uses a combination of paint and textiles to create beautiful landscapes. Personally I'd rather have one of her paintings hanging on my wall at home than a great Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece.

Edit: Please don't take offence if you are a fan of a Tracey Emin or Hirst. It just didn't do it for me. As others have said, Art is totally subjective.

[choirgirl]

We've all made the mistake of interacting with the art installation. Haven't we?

[Jen.]

Originally Posted by Copernicium

Moksha suggested that people were awarded prizes for reasons other than pure merit

He didn't just suggest it, he explicitly said that "people are winning competitions ... just because they are from an ethnic minority, or from a poor or deprived background", naming the recent winner of the TS Eliot prize as being chosen not because he had what the judges decided was the best collection, but because he's black. Where is the evidence for this or any other non-white prize winner accused of the same?

Originally Posted by Copernicium

Jen threw a load of smears and insults and generally had a tantrum.

It says far more about you than me that this is how you interpreted my post. I wonder if you would ever describe a man as "having a tantrum" for picking someone up on their obnoxious views. That post was me responding calmly to the same delusional, racist nonsense I've seen coming from people like you two ever since white people stopped picking up every award. Don't worry, you'll know when I'm having a tantrum.

[Jen.]

^^^ You have to at least hand it to Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst for creating memorable pieces. Over 20 years later and people are still talking about those things.

[Dougella]

Originally Posted by Copernicium

It's a completely obvious question. Moksha suggested that people were awarded prizes for reasons other than pure merit. Jen threw a load of smears and insults and generally had a tantrum. So I asked her is she thought people were ever awarded prizes for reasons other than merit. That gave her lots of room to discuss the issue from all angles. Instead she just carried on where she left off.

The only weird thing is the reaction.



So do you think people are ever awarded prizes for reasons other than merit? Ever?

Actually I think you'll find it was me having a tantrum, Jen was communicating in a perfectly calm way.

No, in the vast majority of cases I don't think they are. So what are you trying to argue here?

[Dougella]

^^^^ If you know that Tracey Emin's unmade bed is partly about depression then that can slightly affect how you might view it. But it's ok if those sorts of artworks aren't your thing!