DJs, Musicians and Visual dudes (2 Viewers)

[frambosenshmak]

I'm sure he'd have a field day with that one.

spot on there watson my old bean now lets see if moriarty is drawing dicks on the queens ten bob note

 

[frambosenshmak]

I challenge anyone here to a visual off!

 

[frambosenshmak]

I challenge anyone here to a visual off!

zap! and while we're at it here's a little visual message...

but you're left eating delorian dust my friend.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

my pottery piece for Inter Cert Art (Craftwork section) was an ashtray with a hole the size of 2p piece in the bottom.

I got a D.

 

[hugh]

I did calligraphy as part of Leaving Cert art exam and was set the task of transcribing title and first verse of the poem "The Midnight Court". After looking at the title once I immediately replaced it in my head with the Wilson Picket song "The Midnight Hour". When painstakingly transcribing the title calligraphy-style I accidently used a "g" instead of an "r". The result being the beautifully rendered title "The Midnight Houg".

I still got a C or something.

Sorry, carry on with the visual art discussion, I've nothing constructive to add.

 

[krystal]

quite the opposite in my experience - less emphasis on honing your abilities and more on forcing you to create concept based works. In 3rd level anyway - however it depends on the discipline you study and where you study it too. Actually its fair enough to create something for the simple reason that you WANT to. Why does a complex explanation validate your work more?

In anyways the way I look at it is create cos you *want* to do it, and don't think you think you have to have a wordy reason for it.

I can't imagine that it's any better anywhere else but education in the arts here seems to pay no regard at all to critical theory. All that post-hippy 'If you like it then it's good' seems to be the order of the day, all in the name of getting more people to stick with it I guess.

The result is that twice the number of people are half as well educated.
Result?

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

Why does a complex explanation validate your work more?

QUOTE]

that is what the true meaning of art is, rationalising your insincere shite to people that don't care, isn't it?

 

[chickenham]

quite the opposite in my experience - less emphasis on honing your abilities and more on forcing you to create concept based works. In 3rd level anyway - however it depends on the discipline you study and where you study it too. Actually its fair enough to create something for the simple reason that you WANT to. Why does a complex explanation validate your work more?

In anyways the way I look at it is create cos you *want* to do it, and don't think you think you have to have a wordy reason for it.

Well, I was really talking about first and second level education. Doing art at 3rd level presupposes that you're interested in the history and ideas of art, ie the context in which you work.

What's the problem with the idea that some things need explaining? I'm still cottoning on to things that used to go right over my head, it's very gratifying to understand things that I didn't use to. All useful explanations welcome here.
or
When does learning stop?

 

[broken arm]

I did calligraphy as part of Leaving Cert art exam and was set the task of transcribing title and first verse of the poem "The Midnight Court". After looking at the title once I immediately replaced it in my head with the Wilson Picket song "The Midnight Hour". When painstakingly transcribing the title calligraphy-style I accidently used a "g" instead of an "r". The result being the beautifully rendered title "The Midnight Houg".

I still got a C or something.

Sorry, carry on with the visual art discussion, I've nothing constructive to add.

for the design section of the leaving cert i designed a vacuum cleaner that could sit on stairs aswell. then a few years after Dyson brings out a similar product. cunt.

 

[krystal]

the problem is that it can be presented as the only valid form of creating a product of visual expression. When in fact, making something that looks nice yet has no conceptual meaning is every bit as valid - as far as I'm concerned anyway. I know plenty of people don't consider something art unless it has a lofty concept attached but I'm more interested in form and function which is probably why I'm a hell of a lot more drawn to product and illustration design than I am to painting and sculpture.

What's the problem with the idea that some things need explaining? I'm still cottoning on to things that used to go right over my head, it's very gratifying to understand things that I didn't use to. All useful explanations welcome here.
or
When does learning stop?

 

[Vinnie]

I'll do my Grease Megamix set.

 

[Napalm]

the problem is that it can be presented as the only valid form of creating a product of visual expression. When in fact, making something that looks nice yet has no conceptual meaning is every bit as valid - as far as I'm concerned anyway. I know plenty of people don't consider something art unless it has a lofty concept attached but I'm more interested in form and function which is probably why I'm a hell of a lot more drawn to product and illustration design than I am to painting and sculpture.

I've got a nice kettle. Wanna see it?

 

[desertedvillage]

What's the problem with the idea that some things need explaining? I'm still cottoning on to things that used to go right over my head, it's very gratifying to understand things that I didn't use to. All useful explanations welcome here.
or When does learning stop?

I think that becomes a problem when the piece in question doesn't communicate anything without the theoretical text on the gallery wall or programme propping it up. Art should be able to communicate on a visceral and emotional level whether we know the artists intentions or not. It's often fascinating to hear what the creator had in mind and it can enhance your appreciation of the work but if the work can't stand on it's own two feet I have no time for it.
Art students are trained to give reasons and meaning for their creations but when someone makes and intallation of a light going on and off in a room and calls it a meditaion on mortality or some shit it leaves me cold. Did anyone ever get a lump in their throat or a sharp intake of breath when turning the corner to see Duchamp's urinal or Emin's bed?
I have the old-fashioned idea that visual artists should be able to create something I can't. I can enjoy something that employed no technical skill in it's creation if it shows imagination and a worldview. eg Picasso sticking a bike saddle and handlebar on a wall to look like a bulls head or the 'crap' drawings of David Shrigley

 

[Ed]

Ah just get a projector and throw up some images of puppies and kittens behind a dj with a fringe cut at a deeply arty angle playing interminable noise records and have conversations about resonanace and the aesthetic value of art the consists of some halfwit throwing litter at a sand and and glue covered metal canvas. Everyone'll be happy. Nerds

 

[broken arm]

MORE ACID. MORE HORNS. and maybe masks

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

I've got a nice kettle. Wanna see it?

yes, yes i do.

 

[chickenham]

If something looks good or functions well then it makes it's own gravy. I also hope to be rocking the decks in Underarm real soon.

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

yeah. i'm not. i have asked about 10 people if i could and they all said "yeah great, deffo" but then never raised it again. cunts.

but like the murphys, i'm not bitter.


















fucking jizzwads

 

[Bag'o'cans]

Art just like everything else doesn't need an explanation to be beautiful.

 

[chickenham]

Gavin! I'm horrified - I never took you for a reactionary.
'I know what I like ... a picture of a horse or something - in a field, that's art. All them squres and circles, sure that's not art'.
A taxi driver talking about his stay in a mental institution.

I think that becomes a problem when the piece in question doesn't communicate anything without the theoretical text on the gallery wall or programme propping it up. Art should be able to communicate on a visceral and emotional level whether we know the artists intentions or not. It's often fascinating to hear what the creator had in mind and it can enhance your appreciation of the work but if the work can't stand on it's own two feet I have no time for it.
Art students are trained to give reasons and meaning for their creations but when someone makes and intallation of a light going on and off in a room and calls it a meditaion on mortality or some shit it leaves me cold. Did anyone ever get a lump in their throat or a sharp intake of breath when turning the corner to see Duchamp's urinal or Emin's bed?
I have the old-fashioned idea that visual artists should be able to create something I can't. I can enjoy something that employed no technical skill in it's creation if it shows imagination and a worldview. eg Picasso sticking a bike saddle and handlebar on a wall to look like a bulls head or the 'crap' drawings of David Shrigley