Gunwalloe - Church Cove
View across Church Cove in Gunwalloe at the base of the Lizard Peninsula.
The church is St Winwalloe with it's distinctively seperate bell tower and surrounding Tamarisk hedge....
newlyn house
Wonderfully painted frontage....
rogers tower
A folly built 18th C, for Mr Rogers, a local landowner....
Why do they have to come up with the same description? If the art work means something to them, or moves them in some way they appreciate, then that is all that is necessary, surely. It's not those who support this form of art that have been asking for explainations, is it?
This is one of the things that bugs me about modern art. If the requirement on finding a meaning is left to the viewer, then there is no requirement for the artiste to put any in, and so they can knock out any old tripe without any kind of thought, and then if someone says it's no good, they can blame the viewer for not 'getting' their work. Modern art which is done with thought, humour, and care and which has a clear message and purpose I have no problem with, pieces like the four-armed gibbet with sacks draped across the arms (on one of the sites linked to in this thread) annoy me for their pointlessness.
Last year, I went to the Frieze Art Fair in Regents Park, London on a whim (it was actually a kind of date, but that's another story). I'd recommend anyone to go there next year to have a look around to see the art there, and I'm sure that there will be something that one will like.
I have been reading this thread for a week now because I am a fan of Swiftie and it’s strangely addictive reading all the arguments that have come out of discussing his work.
I won’t claim to be any kind of expert on art, in fact I don’t even know what counts as modern art, for example is John Miller classed as modern art? How about the St Ives school – Peter Lanyon?, Patrick Heron? Karl Weschke? Are they all being tarred by the same brush?
Something that I understand about art, perhaps modern art in particular, is that it is not necessarily made with any consideration of the viewer, it’s not about making something to please anyone else, but about expressing a feeling, thought or idea of the artist. Yes it’s self indulgent, but what’s wrong with that? The viewer is always given a choice to like or dislike a piece of work, artist’s aren’t trying to force feed you their life view or dictate what you think – merely getting something off their own chest, which you are free to take or leave as you please.
Does there really have to be a ‘clear message and purpose’ in a work of art to make it great – or to in fact qualify as art?
I'm a little disappointed that you haven't come back to us on this cledry_maid. You have stated clearly that your work is more than clothing and suggested that it should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with fine art.
Both Swiftie and Rupert White have gone to considerable trouble to explain their own work and I think it is time for you to do the same. I am certain that all involved in this thread so far will be interested in your response.
FlammNew - I'm don't know the gibbet piece you are talking about, can you put up a new link for me?
I'm not sure if you have misunderstood what I said - I'd never 'blame' the viewer for not 'getting it'... I didn't blame my Mum when she didn't come up with the 'correct' idea I was thinking about, in fact she often comes up with something far more interesting, to me anyway. I and most of the artists that I know want people to use their own minds to find out what the piece means to them (of course this is subject to the work in question). This is not a blame game, there are no winners or losers, art is open and free... that’s the beauty of it, don't you think?
Do you think there are a lot of ‘con-artists’ out there? Do you think I am one? Why would this bug you if you yourself were not being conned (buying art), so to speak. I can understand why someone might dislike, say a cowboy builder, and fear hiring one again, but I can’t figure out why you might be so angry towards modern artists unless you’d bought a piece of art and then gone down the local pub after to find the artist sitting with all your friends, laughing and pointing at you while the artist buys them all drinks with your money… sorry, I’m not taking the Mickey there, just trying to set the scene.
I could go through every painting I've ever shown or made and talk to you about every piece in detail... and I'm pretty sure every artist out there could do the same. I'm not going to do that of course, but you get my point. At the beginning of this thread I think you and Cledry were quick to put down what I do as mindless, childish scribbles (forgive my lack of quotes here); you were the first person to reply to TonT, so bearing all that in mind I'd like to ask you and Cledry a question - Has this discussion (so far) in anyway altered your thoughts on what I do? I'm not asking if you like it or not, I'm interested to know if what you once thought about me and my work has changed at all.
Thanks in advance.
I’m also looking forward to your reply to the hat question Cledry.
Love
S
I might not be being taken in by the modern art con myself, but I see others being taken in, and thousands of pounds worth of grants given to produce (sometimes literally) piles of rubbish, and it bugs me no end! It's like old folk being taken in by rogue tarmackers: it's not happening to me, but I hate to see it happening to others. I also hate the elitism and pseudo-philosophical descriptions of the works of art that are produced with absolutely no aim or thought in the artiste's mind, but because of the critic's description are then taken to be deep and meaningful. (Sorry Swiftie, but your description of your Harmony painting falls into that category: it's a (near-)circle, plain and simple, and that's it. Saying that it symbolises racism or something like that is IMHO nonsense.)
I can only speak for me, but I'm afraid not, and I will never agree that, for example, the DIE rabbit painting should ever get space in any gallery. If I'd come up with something like that in a dark moment (and it would have to have been pretty dark), when I'd looked at it when I was happier I'd have destroyed it as disturbed rather than offered it as a piece for display; I'd never have wanted anything displaying that side of me out on public view. That said, I'd never have painted it in a million years so it's rather academic really.
Hi again all. You may remember I posted a message early in this thread, I own the gallery that represented Swiftie earlier this year. I have to say I have been glued to this thread and it strikes me that judging by the responses here this debate certainly needed to happen. I only hope it continues to do so, not just here but in all environments.
Anyway, I have intentionally chosen not to contribute further to this thread simply because it would be difficult for anything I say regarding Swiftie to be seen as unbiased. But there is something I would like to ask regarding the above thread by FlammNew. You said:
I wanted to address this, as it is in my opinion an extreme view. Not only are you saying that you do not want to see it, but you statement suggests you do not want anyone else to see it either. If we can't agree on anything else I'm sure we can agree that art is subjective; everyone has the choice to either look at it or not to look at it. Also I should say that my gallery hasn't received any kind of funding so money that could have been spent elsewhere was not used to host Swiftie's show.
So my question FlammNew is this, if you have the choice not to come to my gallery and you also don't need to have any concerns about me wasting public money why would you have a problem with me exhibiting the DIE Rabbit?
I feel it may have more to do with your following statement rather than just your dislike for the painting. If it was just that you didn't like it then there is no reason why you would care if I or any other gallery shows it. Clearly this painting means more to you than that it's just a poor painting; your comments about it coming from a dark place and wanting to hide the side of you that may create such a piece as well as your determination that it shouldn't be seen by anyone are testimony to that.
Would you mind elaborating on this a little please? Art to many is about beautiful things; landscapes, the human form, animals, the sea etc. But art, particularly contemporary modern art, can also be about the darkness, the undesirable, sometimes even the frightening. So from my perspective your strong feelings on this piece are fairly representative of what a lot of modern art is trying to communicate, I certainly hope so anyway!
Oh and cledry_maid, I too am looking forward to you talking further about your work.
FlammNew, I find it difficult to believe that your opinion has not changed at all over the course of this thread - that you are so resolutely committed to defending your initial comments that you won’t allow even the slightest concession to the opposition. While reading through this thread my opinion of every person involved in the discussion has see-sawed several times - whenever a reasonable and intelligent point is put forward, whether or not I agree with it, I can respect that view. Several times I have been disappointed by the people that seem to be promoting Modern art in this thread, even though I am definitely on their side of the argument – for being bullish, rude, childish and snobby. Swiftie is one of the few on here who has consistently offered a coherent and articulate point of view without trying to assert that he is right while others are wrong.
Do you still think it is a joke to call Swiftie an artist? I would really like to think that you might at least concede that point… Whether you like his work or not, surely even you must be able to see that he is committed to doing what he does and, while it may not be everyone’s taste, he does make original and creative work and is being true to himself. It’s not like he’s living some lavish lifestyle, drugs, sex and rock n’ roll and just slapping out the odd painting to keep the punters happy… There’s a little more to it than that.
I also struggle with . At art school you are always encouraged to talk about your work as if there is some fantastic meaning behind it, as if it was born from some deep and intrinsic emotion, feeling, or intellectual revelation etc etc… when sometimes, there really isn’t any grand theory behind the ‘why’ of a piece of work. I have a friend who is an amazing sculptor, but whenever he made something at art school there would be someone saying, but what does it mean? Why? What for?
This really became quite a problem, because there was no better answer to those questions than he just felt like making a sculpture of a monkey/ dog/ person/ whatever…
To me that is reason enough – an artist shouldn’t really have to justify the work they create, it’s an entirely personal thing. Some people have something they really want to say, a message they want to get across to the public, for which they utilise their art. Fair enough too. But it’s also perfectly reasonable to make something purely for the pleasure or personal satisfaction of the artist. Don’t you think?
I think it’s unfair to place Swiftie in the category with since it seems that you are so keen for an explanation of his work. What he wrote about his work was a generous attempt to shed some light on the mental processes he went through to produce that particular painting – he wasn’t offering up an artist’s statement to be pinned on the wall next to the painting in order to explain to every viewer the deep meaning behind it. He quite cleary explains that what went into making it has nothing to do with what he expects you or anyone else to get from it. If you get nothing at all and feel nothing at all about his work he won’t call you stupid or insensitive, he’ll accept that is your reaction and be satisfied with that.
(BTW I’m glad that Vitreous has come back in to the discussion as well, a reasonable and eloquent voice is nice to hear.)
Yep. I also said that if I had painted it, I wouldn't have wanted it shown to anyone because of what I would have felt it said about me.
Subjective maybe, but the fact that some people may choose to look away or turn off their TV is no excuse for art or the media to generate output that is excessively violent or misogynistic or racist or disturbing or just not very good, under the excuse that "you don't have to look."
AI, You were already convinced by the arty arguments; I was not and am not, so don't be surprised. I will shift my views when someone comes up with convincing concrete arguments to promote stuff like the DIE painting or the gibbet&sacks. Until then....
*Sigh* Saying that is a perfectly acceptable reason for producing a sculpture! Throwing something together and then pretending that it represents something deep and meaningful is not.
Fair enough. But when it needs an essay to explain what a pile of bricks or a plain white square or an unmade bed or a circle are supposed to represent, the artist hasn't succeeded in their desire to get a message across.
I appreciate him writing what he wrote, but I'm sorry but I can't accept that a B&W circle represents music, Cornwall, racism and perfection (amongst other things), and I cannot understand the mindset that reads so much into a simple circle, especially as Swiftie himself implies that he wasn't trying to get any of those points across when he painted it!
FlammNew, you have stated that you are now out of this thread so I doubt you will respond to this. You have barely touched on any of what I said; I challenged you on why you not only do not want to see DIE displayed but that you also don't want anyone else to see it either. You have not given any reply to this, you have not stated why you care if that painting is shown. The statements you made about how you would feel if you had painted it were incidental, you were clear that you didn't want the DIE rabbit to be shown anywhere.
You stated that the media should not be able to show anything that is excessively violent, misogynistic, racist or disturbing. I've not heard you refer to any of Swiftie's work as violent, misogynistic or racist before so I will assume you're not doing so now. So, it seems that your reason for not wanting DIE to be seen by anyone ever is because of how disturbing it is, although you haven't given us any indication of why it is disturbing but that's your own business.
It's a painting of what appears to be a rabbit with the letters D, I and E where the mouth should be. You will note from the title below the image the piece is in fact called D.I.E and not Die. In addition there is what could be a priests collar around the neck, that coupled with the black attire suggests a religious undertone. Also if you look closely at the letter 'i' you will notice at the bottom is a small horizontal line which could in fact be the real mouth, if you then removed the D and the E it would almost appear as the rabbit is smoking. Also note the direction of the eyes; cover up one eye and he is looking directly at you, look at them both and he is clearly looking down. Finally is the bold red backdrop; the image of the rabbit as priest enhances this red and gives a satanic air to the entire image. This isn't an explanation of the piece by the way; I am just drawing your attention to each detail.
Now, I can understand why anyone may look at this painting and consider it to be a little disturbing, the general feel is one of malice and disquiet. So excessively disturbing it certainly is not, if it is only slightly disturbing then there should be no problem with it being shown.
So you can see how I am confused by your words FlammNew. Clearly you cannot consider this work to be excessively disturbing and I'm sure you wouldn't wish to censor material that is only slightly disturbing. Of course this is all moot as you are now out of this discussion, but both you and cledry_maid have been very outspoken on this subject when you were railing against modern art but now it is you who are being challenged and it seems cledry_maid has gone to ground and the answers you have given to my questions at least have been evasive and confusing and you're now stating you will respond no further.
Review urged over toll rise plans
Councillors in Cornwall want plans for a 50% increase in toll charges to cross the River Tamar to be reviewed.
Safety DVD helps migrant workers
A safety DVD aimed at helping migrant workers in Cornwall settle into life in the county is released.
Sex case teacher 'compassionate'
A former outdoor pursuits instructor accused of abusing children tells a court he dealt with pupils compassionately.
Crews in tumble dryer fire rescue
One person is rescued from a four-storey building in Cornwall after a fire broke out because of a tumble dryer.
Cat survives sealed box tomb ordeal
A cat is found alive despite being dumped in a plastic box sealed shut with parcel tape in Cornwall.
MK CALL ON SW RDA TO SUPPORT SOUTH CROFTY PLAN
Members of the Camborne and Redruth constituency party of Mebyon Kernow have called on both the South West Regional Development Agency (RDA) and the Urban Regeneration Company (URC) for the area to drop any opposition to the current re-opening of South Crofty Mine. The MK members want statements issued in support of the mine.
REJECTION OF PRISON TRANSFER REQUEST MEAN-SPIRITED
Following a specious and mean-spirited decision an Irish prisoner in England has had his request for a transfer to a prison in Ireland been rejected once again, for the fifth time.
BREIZH: LEAGUE GS MEETS UN CLIMSAT DIRECTOR
The Director of the new United Nations CLIMSAT centre in Brest, Breizh (Brittany) said on the weekend that the future of the Breton environment lay in the autonomy of Brittany.
