A huge rotating shower of hot shite being sprayed over the nation

[Cloth-Ears]

Why would anyone need to have their taste "backed up" or have it "analysed" ?

W.t.f. ?

That's just bizarre ! Elitist too I suggest.

Pardon me for speaking up, I mean me, a mere cat and art ignoramous, but it does seem obvious to me that your way of thinking here is wanky to say the least !

[It Cost How Much!?!]

I think the Arts get the funding they deserve. If they are good, people will pay to enjoy them. If they are not, they won't.

I think the public funding of the "arts" is a fucking disgraceful waste of tax payer's money.

No the disgraceful waste of tax payers money is Covent Garden Opera House

[It Cost How Much!?!]

Sorry James (:-)), I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this. I used to visit the Wam for help and info on Hi-Fi - I am returning visits for almost "brass Eye' style relief, the thread regarding Travellers recently was a gas! And thank God a Mod deleted a post in the Japanese Hi Fi show thread which I could not believe had been posted.

i speak as someone who grew up in a caravan and worked for the Arts Council for many years. The former due to poverty and the latter because of a love of supporting and developing innovative, imaginative art.

Get off your high horse

[TheMooN]

Adamdea, you miss my point entirely. My view is that by trying to discuss it, you cannot appreciate it or disregard it without intelectualising it. Trying to intelectualise that which we can know nothing about, is bollocks, it's Pseudo intelectual, and I can't be doing with it.

To me, when it comes to art you either like something or you don't. It's an emotional reaction that doesn't need or deserve discussion. I love Sashimi, many find it repulsive. There is nothing further to discuss in the matter without becoming ridiculous in the process. Art to me is the same. I may be wrong, but that is how I feel about art.

To get back on topic, as posters these works of art are shit - that's my view. But perhaps the point of these posters is not to advertise the olympics, perhaps the point of them is to be sold in the gift shops as momentos, so they should be judged as works of art after all. In which case I am wrong to dismiss them. For mew though. as works of art, I don't really like them much. Most of them I find childish and totally without any merit whatsoever and a couple are mildly amusing and nice to look at.

Your view on them is neither here nor there to me. But sneering at people for saying they don't like them doesn't further your argument any.

As for identifying works that I enjoyed in the Tait, I couldn't, not many. I rarely take notice of who it is by, I just look at it and either enjoy it or not. I am not going to buy it, I am certainly not going to try and discuss it with anyone. It's just me and it.

Favourite thing ever.. Anish Kapoor's Red Wax.. (not at the Tait, Natch). Doris Salcedo's crack (ohh matron) was marvelous. No idea why, but it was (to me at least, many thought it was just a crack and they are right too). I saw some video art at the Pompidou a few weeks ago that had me gripped for ages. I like a lot of art, but I don't feel the need to defend that which I find either cynical or simply ermm.. sorry but crap.

Aye , Not a patch on The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies by Van Klomp

[Tel]

That's good, got any cheques you want to send me?

[Ozexpat]

Aye , Not a patch on The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies by Van Klomp

Now THAT'S art

[adamdea]

Why would anyone need to have their taste "backed up" or have it "analysed" ?

W.t.f. ?

That's just bizarre ! Elitist too I suggest.

Pardon me for speaking up, I mean me, a mere cat and art ignoramous, but it does seem obvious to me that your way of thinking here is wanky to say the least !

Is it really so surprising that someone might take the view that expressions of artistic taste might have slightly more to them than "I like the way chocolate ice cream tastes".
I am not claiming to be an expert at all, but I would say that for example mark cousin's views on film might for example have more breadth of reference and depth of insight than my 11 year old daughter. Equally I would say that most people's views on say eisenstein or at least the way thry held them, would change quite quickly following learning even some basic material about his place in the development of certain cinematic techniques.
Would you seriously argue that say Nicholas serota's views on say Joseph Beuys would be qualitatively similar to that of a randomn man on the street. I am not saying his views are necessarily "better" in any abstract sense but he may has views and preferences based on quite complex reasoning about how this artists fits into or doesnt fit into a tradition, or relates to the work of other artists.
Putting it another way, would you think that my views on say Lionel messi's status in the pantheon of footballers would be given equal weight to Alex ferguson's?

If I visit a gallery and have a reaction to a work, then I discuss it with other people, go and read about it, maybe look up other works by the same artists, and perhaps learn about other works which might have influenced it, I will feel the my views on it have developed. I may conclude that the work is so derivative and that I would not have liked it at first had I realised how unoriginal it was. That is not the same as saying that my original reaction should be ignored, or that I was wrong; but I may feel that my later view was more well founded.
It's really about the practice of holding and examining your own views rather than necessarily feeling the need to justify them. In this sense I think aesthetic views are similar to moral ones.
Perhaps I should just stick to " the un examined life is not worth living".

Now if that makes me wanky then I put my left hand up, and I'll show you my right hand in a minute.

[Cloth-Ears]

Is it really so surprising that someone might take the view that expressions of artistic taste might have slightly more to them than "I like the way chocolate ice cream tastes".
I am not claiming to be an expert at all, but I would say that for example mark cousin's views on film might for example have more breadth of reference and depth of insight than my 11 year old daughter. Equally I would say that most people's views on say eisenstein or at least the way thry held them, would change quite quickly following learning even some basic material about his place in the development of certain cinematic techniques.
Would you seriously argue that say Nicholas serota's views on say Joseph Beuys would be qualitatively similar to that of a randomn man on the street. I am not saying his views are necessarily "better" in any abstract sense but he may has views and preferences based on quite complex reasoning about how this artists fits into or doesnt fit into a tradition, or relates to the work of other artists.
Putting it another way, would you think that my views on say Lionel messi's status in the pantheon of footballers would be given equal weight to Alex ferguson's?

If I visit a gallery and have a reaction to a work, then I discuss it with other people, go and read about it, maybe look up other works by the same artists, and perhaps learn about other works which might have influenced it, I will feel the my views on it have developed. I may conclude that the work is so derivative and that I would not have liked it at first had I realised how unoriginal it was. That is not the same as saying that my original reaction should be ignored, or that I was wrong; but I may feel that my later view was more well founded.
It's really about the practice of holding and examining your own views rather than necessarily feeling the need to justify them. In this sense I think aesthetic views are similar to moral ones.
Perhaps I should just stick to " the un examined life is not worth living".

Now if that makes me wanky then I put my left hand up, and I'll show you my right hand in a minute.

Howd you mean ?

[meninblack]

Here's a nice, cat-friendly poster:

[SergeAuckland]

Here's a nice, cat-friendly poster:

Now that tells me something about the Olympics! It shows strength, determination and the competitive spirit. All good stuff.

S.

[i_should_coco]

Gotta love those aryan supermen.

[Tons of Fun]

Now that tells me something about the Olympics! It shows strength, determination and the competitive spirit. All good stuff.

S.

For me it shows a grumpy bloke just after he had his arse handed to him by Jesse Owens. He's holding a pitchfork and getting ready to put his Klan hat on. For whatever reason, he's receiving support from Micheal York in his Logan's Run era form.

[meninblack]

Gotta love those aryan supermen.

Don't fancy yours much. Come to think of it, don't fancy mine much either.

[adamdea]

That poster sums up what a lot of people find uncomfortable in the olympics - the displacement of feelings of national/ maybe even racial competition. If you did it now you would probably have to intend it satirically

[i_should_coco]

Is it me or do they look a bit like Michael Schumacher?

[earlofsodbury]

Is it me or do they look a bit like Michael Schumacher?

Snap, exact same thought!

I must admit, without the text, I'd have assumed it was a deco-themed transgendering service...

[rockmeister]

Maybe the problem with the posters, for some, is that the conclusion that they are crap, was reached before any work was done to see if this were so. I mean there is a readiness to condemn the work BECAUSE we know that at least some of the Artists concerned have 'interesting/controversial' pasts?

For me, they are almost exactly what I would expect to have been produced, given the brief.The problem ,if it exists then, should more properly be attributed to the idiots who decided that asking some of these people to produce work was a good idea in the first place. If you ask a woman whose major body of exhibition work recently has been in the form of loose, sketchy, narrative drawing to produce a poster in her own style, you really, really ought not to be shocked when she produces a loose, sketchy narrative drawing. The more 'Graphic' works are certainly easier on the eye, and Craig Martin breaches the fine art/graphic gap as usual, quite well, but real graphic designers might well have done a far better job of Advertising. I can only assume that the committee involved are bright/well informed enough to have acted deliberately, and this is more an opportunity to showcase British Art to the world.

That kind of leads us back to the start. Are they great? No-one knows. In a hundred or so years, come back and see if you can find T.E in an Art book describing the 21st century. If she's there, then you'll just have to bite the bullet and admit she was truly great. (Still dislike her personally ofc). If not, smugness welcomed.

[meninblack]

It's disappointing that Chris Ofili didn't use any poo. I think each of his posters should include a turd shat by Paula Radcliffe by the roadside during the last London Marathon.

[adamdea]

Maybe the problem with the posters, for some, is that the conclusion that they are crap, was reached before any work was done to see if this were so. I mean there is a readiness to condemn the work BECAUSE we know that at least some of the Artists concerned have 'interesting/controversial' pasts?

For me, they are almost exactly what I would expect to have been produced, given the brief.

I completely agree with you up to this point.

But I do wonder whether the whole basis of this thread has been a misapprehension that this was intended as a pure piece of advertising. I don't think it was
so I'm with you that
"I can only assume that the committee involved are bright/well informed enough to have acted deliberately, and this is more an opportunity to showcase British Art to the world."

Now people may very well question the wisdom on allowing art to represent the Olympics in any way, and they may even have err strong views on the folly of spending any public money on the arts at all. It's quite a different thing to evaluate these works as works of art though.

Maybe part of the problem is that contemporary art has tended to work in installations or sculptures rather than just graphic works and certainly the most popular bits of contemporary art recently seem generally have fallen to that category: eg Anish kapoor's RA exhibition last year, Anthony Gormley's work, lots of Turbine hall installations in the tate such as the Weather project, the crack, Louise Bourgeouis' spider. I think people are a bit less self conscious in interacting with these and find it easier to like them before their preconceptions get in the way. Quite a lot of people seem to like the Rachel Whiteread piece which is a bit like an installation (table top with drink rings)

I also agree with you that only time will tell- although it does not necessarily tell decisively or finally: it may well be that Tracey Emin is considered a major figure in 100 years time and rather less major figure afterwards (cf say Raphael maybe or handel's operas). I find her really annoying (god i remember her column in the independent) but she may just turn out to be an idiot savant.

Nevertheless you can probably feel more confident about some people than others: I bet Bridget Riley will be in the text books, although probably not for her recent work.