Field Theory by Hadyn Green

Read Post

Field Theory: A post about art (sort of)

503 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 21 Newer→ Last

  • Ian Dalziel,

    When were the Romans here, did I miss something?.

    Substations of the Crossing...
    an alternate history...
    Escaping from the flames of Mesopotomia, the Roman Legion of the Parthian Less Trodden (Naval Division) fled south, drifting across the Arabian Sea and The Indian Ocean, missing Australia completely to wash ashore on the west coast of New Zealand. Due to decimation only a cohort survived to
    establish a remote base in Fiordland...
    Generations later they crept from hiding to assimilate themselves into the European diaspora flooding into New Rome...
    They established themselves in Canterbury
    and traces of them may be seen in the Shrines * to the great (Greco-Roman) God MED** dotted about Christchurch and the Cantabrian propensity for Atriums and gladiatorial sports...

    PS and I guess some went to Auckland to build St Kevins - <ahem>

    *as captured here by Chch artist Hilaire Campbell

    ** this idea of these temples of MED spread across Chch in an arcane pattern was in a great book I read years ago, the title and author of which I have forgotten - does anyone else remember?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4555 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Due to decimation only a cohort survived

    I believe you're going to hear from Craig's attorneys on this one.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7320 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I believe you're going to hear from Craig's attorneys on this one.

    Bloody Mathematicus - point taken...
    Decimation is taking one-in-ten
    and a Cohort is a tenth of a Legion
    sorry, I was all at sea with that one
    but ya get my drift...

    I suppose I could get into some kind of explanation of a series of nine decimations...
    but the numbers shift and we could slip into numerical paradoxes - so being a Zeno-phobe
    I'll leave well enough alone...

    speaking of Tenths (he lisped)...

    'Art' is a big tent, attempts to exclude people from it (particularly with quasi snobbery like people who make works for entertainment shouldn't also make public art works) are silly.

    and

    Well, I'm of the (subjective) opinion that pretty much everything 'created' by Emin, Hirst, or any of those Hoxton twerps is an enormous heap of steaming, stinking ordure.
    In some cases, almost literally.

    I think we may be getting sidelined by the Freakshows and amusements on the midway
    heading towards the Big Top circus proper...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4555 posts Report Reply

  • JackElder,

    When were the Romans here, did I miss something?

    More to the point: what did they do for us?

    Wellington • Since Mar 2008 • 708 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Camping it up...?

    Everyone I Have Ever Slept With, 1963-95.
    Appliqued tent, mattress and light. 122 x 245 x 215 cm. - Tracey Emin.

    is this work the genesis of the phrase:
    "being sold a pup"?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4555 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    But the quality of the idea? Come on.

    Yeah but you can say that about umpteen pieces of art. Lots of statues and portraits are faithful representations of various kings and queens sitting. Busts are even worse. Royal artists often faithfully recreated the members of the royal family (some adjusted their artworks to make them look better). The only expression involved was the lack of one on the model's face. They're certainly artists producing artworks, some very famous ones.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6151 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    I'm saying that that the tripod is pedestrian if competent in its execution and utterly unimaginative in its conception. I don't think you'd say the same of Piero's portrait of Federico Da Montefeltro, or Rembrandt's portrait of his mother. The idea there may be somewhat obvious - here's my boss! here's Mum! - but the execution is something else entirely, and what is extraordinary about the two paintings is not the likeness in itself.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7320 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    Without a clear definition of the "Art World" I'm not buying this, as the definition is clearly ciircular in the context used here.

    Art is identified by the Art World; that is not circular. The Art World is everybody involved in art: curators, critics, dealers, the interested public.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I'm saying that that the tripod is pedestrian if competent in its execution and utterly unimaginative in its conception.

    I'm not sure if I've seen it, so OK, sure.

    But that doesn't make something 'not art'. There's plenty of unimaginatively concepted art out there.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6151 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Agree, I'm not saying it's not art. I'm just saying it's the kind of art I'd happily take a blowtorch to.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7320 posts Report Reply

  • David Cauchi,

    Art is identified by the Art World; that is not circular. The Art World is everybody involved in art: curators, critics, dealers, the interested public.

    You may want to try googling 'institutional theory of art circular'.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2007 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I'm just saying it's the kind of art I'd happily take a blowtorch to.

    Upcoming performance piece by Giovanni Tiso: "Artworks I don't like melting before your eyes."

    Since Nov 2006 • 6151 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    You may want to try googling 'institutional theory of art circular'.

    Why? I am a busy man. Besides, I have heard the circularity argument before, and I am not convinced by it. You tell me why you think it circular and I will tell you why I think it not so.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    But that doesn't make something 'not art'. There's plenty of unimaginatively concepted art out there.

    And, by what I've read here about Wellington, they certainly have their fair share. I do like Kinetic Art for arts sake, in public spaces. It draws the public in,(not literally) and allows personal contemplation without the need for positive consensus. A " Wellywood" sign will only become kinetic when one of the letters is flying in the wind.Then I suppose the Tripod could be used to hold it back in place, or at least to hold the Troll up beside the Graffiti? As you may tell I haven't been there for some time. :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 5924 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    As you may tell I haven't been there for some time.

    Or here. I think I am mixing two threads but I dunno. Is that art (ful)?

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 5924 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    It's not precisely circular but it seems like a first instance of art wouldn't be logically possible.

    Around this point in the debate I tend to say (or agree) the question isn't normally significant anyway; I think when people ask whether something's art they normally want to know if it's, as art, too crappy to bother with.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1094 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    Okay, make that 'practically' possible.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1094 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Here's an example of an artwork that is objectively crappy.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7320 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Agree, I'm not saying it's not art. I'm just saying it's the kind of art I'd happily take a blowtorch to.

    How about something more maniacally mechanical, rather than mechanistic, to give you that Tinguely feeling...

    Bet this blowtorched beauty by Wacko Giaco would give the Tripod a run for its money...
    ...though having seen the Courtenay Pl Tripod for the first time today (on the web) I'm surprised there hasn't been a cheapo District Nein with the Tripod being animated and cutting a swathe thru wellington, perhaps with closing shots atop the Beehive, Rodney Hide clutched in its mandibles...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4555 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Circularity within the round
    Well, I only had to read the first couple of paragraphs of that Dickey argument to disagree with the writer, BondBloke (sounds like a guy who has fantasies about James Bond being Gay if you ask me... but you didn't) He claims that one of the failures of Dickey's theory is...

    (iii) its failure to distinguish good from bad art;

    And that, in itself, is a fail. His example of found art fails to address the juxtaposition and surrealist part of the equation and relies, instead, on the work done in transporting found art to the gallery as its defining quality.
    Poppycock!!!!

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4613 posts Report Reply

  • 81stcolumn,

    “Art is identified by the Art World; that is not circular. The Art World is everybody involved in art: curators, critics, dealers, the interested public.”

    Art is identified by the Art World.

    Art = Art world.

    Circular, as Art appears on both sides of the equation.

    The Art world as you put it, has a presumed knowledge of what Art is, where has this come from ?

    Who gets to define; curators, critics, dealers, the interested public ? And does this require community agreement ?

    For example if I decide I am interested and decide I am an Artist does that make what I produce Art ?

    If my wife is interested in my drawings does that make them Art ?

    If the Art world changes does the definition of Art change with it ?

    Oh, and then there’s this guy

    Nawthshaw • Since Nov 2006 • 708 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Bet this blowtorched beauty by Wacko Giaco would give the Tripod a run for its money...

    A run for our money you mean surely?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7320 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    A run for our money you mean surely?

    Ha, not "our" money, we live in Auckland ha ha ha... ooops. yes our money is. your money down in Wellington. Thanks Rodders.
    ;-)

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4613 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    Art = Art world.

    Circular, as Art appears on both sides of the equation.

    Your equation, not mine: Art and the Art World are not the same thing.

    The Art world as you put it, has a presumed knowledge of what Art is, where has this come from ?

    Art is not a substance, like gin or couscous. It is a term given to artistic practices. The 'first instance' argument mentioned by Lyndon also falls on this part. The practices we regard as art (painting, dancing, acting, etc) existed long before they were recognised as art

    Who gets to define; curators, critics, dealers, the interested public ? And does this require community agreement ?

    Everyone; it requires consensus, but not agreement.

    For example if I decide I am interested and decide I am an Artist does that make what I produce Art ?

    If my wife is interested in my drawings does that make them Art ?

    No: you need to be accepted, by people more disinterested than your wife.

    If the Art world changes does the definition of Art change with it ?

    It is all in flux.

    Oh, and then there’s this guy

    Mine, I think: Vetriano is admired by many but not by the Art World. He is not represented in public musuems. He is an artist - what else could he be? He is just not a very good artist.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    He claims that one of the failures of Dickey's theory is...

    (iii) its failure to distinguish good from bad art;

    Aye, there's the rub. It is not the business of philosophical aesthetics to make that distinction.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 21 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.