View Full Version : Art ... or insult
Don't normally get on my high horse about art as most of it is bollox....however I do think this guy is pushing the bounfries, particularly with the title of the paintings rather than the content:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/skreber2.htm
Gypsy
06-07-2005, 09:47 AM
that is a bit disturbing
Smudge
06-07-2005, 09:49 AM
Quote from the site...
"In It Rocks Us… Skreber sells revulsion on the merits of sex appeal. Painted with the soft focus of advertising, his car crash doesn't glorify death but renders it more intimate through the astringent gloss of pop. Skreber's mesmerising painting broaches the unthinkable. Alluring in its sterile beauty, the surface promises nothing beyond our commodified conception of the infinite: a terrible fascination glimmering with airbrushed newness."
What a load of b******t!
I'm sorry I looked now :mad:
Just an expression, I think it's pretty moving!
Trouble with art is that it is very personal to the artist, you never know what they were thinking!
Bosun
06-07-2005, 09:50 AM
thats just tooo strange
Mrs Smudge
06-07-2005, 09:53 AM
that first one was from me!
...sorry I'm a bit new to this and forgot to log out him indoors! :o
subjective vision is one thing but sensationalism for the sake of the grotesque and macabre is unnesscessary.
I went to an outdoor exhibition oon the thames of war photos from around the world, me and a mate both came away crying our eyes out at the sheer desperation/resilience/fragility of the subjects...that is art
painting a car crash is not....
painting a car crash is not....
To you!
Like I said mate, art is very personal. Others may look at what moved you and your friend as no more than exploiting the lives of those lost in the war.
Granted, it isn't an image I would hang on my wall, but cars crashing are as much a part of life as 'Grapes in Bowl' or 'Self Portrait' by A.N Other!
Santa
06-07-2005, 10:40 AM
It's not proper art!
There's no women with their tits out! :D
It's not proper art!
There's no women with their tits out! :D
AMEN .... :D
I s'pose it just reflects what all feckin' rubber neckers do when they pass an accident, it's just frozen. I quite like the rocks us 3 pic (but I have been told that I'm not wired right)
It's not proper art!
It's art with a silent F.............
For Dirk Skreber, natural disasters, car crashes and near-miss train accidents become monumental icons of beauty. His epic paintings lovingly embrace catastrophe, offering a religious awe of their grim expectation. Depicted with high-gloss allusion to media imagery and viewed through the odd angles of a surveillance camera, Skreber’s paintings are sublime mediations of death and isolation, rendered more intimate and appealing through the astringent sheen of consumerism.
this is my OPINION............not fact obviously
no no no a thousand times no
some things are not beautiful no matter how they're depicted
you can't just portray anything and call it art in order to get away with showing disturbing images
many times images of bike accidents posted on here have been condemned, and to me it makes no difference if that image is a photograph or a painting (since photos are also considered to be art)
I could be even more contentious and ask how acceptable it would be if it was a painting of a child being molested?
:confused:
I could be even more contentious and ask how acceptable it would be if it was a painting of a child being molested?
:confused:
It isn't so I can't comment.
I really enjoy art and the more I look at something, the less it becomes about what the image is and more about what it represents.
For 1000's of years art (and that is a very broad term) has been used to depict, record and illustrate events and moments in time.
Is this art? It's a battle scene, very macabre with all it's death an dustruction.
Is it any different?
BikerGran
06-07-2005, 11:33 AM
I think art is crap because whether it is regarded as great or not all depends on where you were taught and who you trained with. There is an art gallery in our town, it's apparently well known and respected, peopole come from London to the exhibitions there - but some of the paintings are no better than I can do, they get shown because they've been to the right places and have letters after their names. I couldn't get shown because I haven't 'trained' at all.
I might sell a picture for £50 that would be £5000 if I had a different name and history.
What's that got to do with art? It's commerce.
I think art is crap .
Which bit in particular!
What's that got to do with art? It's commerce.
Thats right, it's commercialism, a by-product of so much stuff these days!
I think you have raised a pretty universally accepted point though BG, the sale of art is as shady a business as selling second hand bikes.
As for how good it is compard to something you 'could' do, thats the great thing about it, you decide if you like it or not.
Jonnyfp
06-07-2005, 11:52 AM
http://www.hahapages.com/pics/monalisa.jpg
modernist is my forte..lol
http://www.hahapages.com/pics/monalisa.jpg
modernist is my forte..lol
Looks like my sister :D
Is this art? It's a battle scene, very macabre with all it's death an dustruction.
Is it any different?
hmmm, well I think war has been romanticised, not necessarily right, also it's history, doesn't happen that way now, I doubt whether a painting of eg the Iraq war would be considered art
maybe in 100 years from now when bikes n cars don't exist we'll look on it more favourably
and um, did you miss my point about the kids? ie WHY isn't it acceptable? why is it ok to paint bike accidents but not kiddie porn?
me? I like art, but as for music, there's stuff I like, and stuff I don't like, and here I disagree with STEViE a bit cos I reckon there's also music & art that really is cr@p (IMO) :cool:
It isn't so I can't comment.
I really enjoy art and the more I look at something, the less it becomes about what the image is and more about what it represents.
For 1000's of years art (and that is a very broad term) has been used to depict, record and illustrate events and moments in time.
Is this art? It's a battle scene, very macabre with all it's death an dustruction.
Is it any different?
I also enjoy art, I do the galleries a couple of times a year, have books etc but the main difference between your example and mine is the historical value and the what the picture represents.
The artist I have mentioned seeks to glorify and dare I say beautify catastrophe?
where the picture you posted may offer a more triumphant viewpoint of a battle. this has both historical value and was pertinant to the mindset of the populace at the time. Car accidents however are neither heroic or of value historically to us.
hmmm, well I think war has been romanticised, not necessarily right, also it's history, doesn't happen that way now, I doubt whether a painting of eg the Iraq war would be considered art
maybe in 100 years from now when bikes n cars don't exist we'll look on it more favourably
and um, did you miss my point about the kids? ie WHY isn't it acceptable? why is it ok to paint bike accidents but not kiddie porn?
me? I like art, but as for music, there's stuff I like, and stuff I don't like, and here I disagree with STEViE a bit cos I reckon there's also music & art that really is cr@p (IMO) :cool:
I agree, there's plenty of stuff in both art and music which doesn't float my boat, but that doesn't make it crap - to everyone else.
As for the child molestation, well I would have to ask why someone would paint a picture of such a thing.
Anyway, this is just semantics really, it's personal interpretation – I mean what is art to you?
Jonnyfp
06-07-2005, 12:12 PM
Looks like my sister :D
Which one??
what is art to you?
go on then mister.....betcha can guess my fave paintings........or 'genre' even :D
go on then mister.....betcha can guess my fave paintings........or 'genre' even :D
Post modern Erotica based on a Renaissance style
I also enjoy art, I do the galleries a couple of times a year, have books etc but the main difference between your example and mine is the historical value and the what the picture represents.
So the subject isn't important to you and therefore this must mean it isn't Art?
The artist I have mentioned seeks to glorify and dare I say beautify catastrophe?
Those are the words of someone else describing his work, just their interpretation I feel.
triumphant viewpoint of a battle. this has both historical value and was pertinant to the mindset of the populace at the time.Car accidents however are neither heroic or of value historically to us
So art is only about recording triumphant historical events?
You asked the Question Art or Insult? I am not insulted by this man painting moving and evocative scenes of catastrophic events.
I watched the planes crashing into the Twin Towers and I couldn't take my eyes off, I didn't like what I was seeing but it made me think and I am glad I did witness it. However you look at it, those images were awesome.
But if what you wanted to ask is 'Artist or Artist & Morbid Bloke' well then I'd have something different to say mate! :D
Which one??
Amanda :D
I know what you 'kin meant
go on then mister.....betcha can guess my fave paintings........or 'genre' even :D
I wouldn't have a bloody clue....
I like all wall hangings by 'Graeme & Browne' :D
Oka. and I quote, "semantics" using the personal interpretation tip is a cute get out of jail much like like the divine being versus evolution.
I never said that art couldn't be historical, nor did I say that history could not be art.
I find it insulting that this 'artist' titles the pictures the way he does with thye content. And i would contend that resussitation pictures in a medical book are not art although I am sure there is argument enough here to support the possibility of it becoming art in the right environs.
Because we can describe art as subjective and describe ANYTHING as art you would perhaps consider this a void thread?
I personally prefer life as art, still , nature death as part of livfe but not glorified. The exhibition I discussed earlier represented a reportage and highlighted plight and deprevation.
Based on your opinion gypsys child molestation is as valid.... lets face it there was that disgusting portrait of Myra hyndly made with child handprints....
I respect yur views and must insist that you respect mine. I don't make this discussion out of idle boredom or ignorance. Nor, do I miss the point of art in all it's guises.
So bollox to you :D
Oka. and I quote, "semantics" using the personal interpretation tip is a cute get out of jail much like like the divine being versus evolution.
I never said that art couldn't be historical, nor did I say that history could not be art.
I find it insulting that this 'artist' titles the pictures the way he does with thye content. And i would contend that resussitation pictures in a medical book are not art although I am sure there is argument enough here to support the possibility of it becoming art in the right environs.
Because we can describe art as subjective and describe ANYTHING as art you would perhaps consider this a void thread?
I personally prefer life as art, still , nature death as part of livfe but not glorified. The exhibition I discussed earlier represented a reportage and highlighted plight and deprevation.
Based on your opinion gypsys child molestation is as valid.... lets face it there was that disgusting portrait of Myra hyndly made with child handprints....
I respect yur views and must insist that you respect mine. I don't make this discussion out of idle boredom or ignorance. Nor, do I miss the point of art in all it's guises.
So bollox to you :D
Uh HUH.....
So just explain again, why these pictures aren't art?
actually I have just submitted a piece to the tate it is entitled the rise and fal of the packederm:
it's a pile of crustry elephant spunk on some Kleenex tissue :D
actually I have just submitted a piece to the tate it is entitled the rise and fal of the packederm:
it's a pile of crustry elephant spunk on some Kleenex tissue :D
And what is it that makes that art then?
Uh HUH.....
So just explain again, why these pictures aren't art?
I didn't say it wasn't art, I would describe it as insulting rather than artistic but as you have successfully contended anything is art as it is subject to the viewers opinion....you answered you're own question ;)
Worjorj
06-07-2005, 01:06 PM
it's a pile of crustry elephant spunk on some Kleenex tissue :D
You'll still have some pretentious tw*t in a cravat saying "What's the artist trying to say here?"
And what is it that makes that art then?
my opinion :D :D
I didn't say it wasn't art, I would describe it as insulting rather than artistic but as you have successfully contended anything is art as it is subject to the viewers opinion....you answered you're own question ;)
But you're question was 'Art OR Insult'
So now it can be both then ? :D
of course a purist would say that it is exactly MY opinion that makes the crash pictures art.....it's provocative
But you're question was 'Art OR Insult'
So now it can be both then ? :D
In my mind it's not both. :D I can draw quite good little turds but I wouldn't consider them art.
I think art is almost too broad a term and can encompass too much. ... Just because someone can paint they are not an artist. just because someone makes somebody laugh, they are not a comedien. Just because mo mowlem is fat it doesn't make her ugly....her genes did that quite successfully on their own.
The Beer Monsters
06-07-2005, 01:12 PM
But you're question was 'Art OR Insult'
So now it can be both then ? :D
Depends if it's an inclusive or exclusive OR.
...
You can be rich OR poor (you can't be both)
To join this club you must ride a rat OR be over 50 (you could be both).
...
Clarification sought.
Worjorj
06-07-2005, 01:12 PM
How about a comprimise. Insulting art.
of course a purist would say that it is exactly MY opinion that makes the crash pictures art.....it's provocative
So is standing on someones toe :D
Depends if it's an inclusive or exclusive OR.
...
You can be rich OR poor (you can't be both)
To join this club you must ride a rat OR be over 50 (you could be both).
...
Clarification sought.
That would have required the question to be Art OR Insulting Art!
Just because someone can paint they are not an artist. just because someone makes somebody laugh, they are not a comedien. Just because mo mowlem is fat it doesn't make her ugly....her genes did that quite successfully on their own.
So what is an artist then mate? :D
Frida Kahlo.Now that's an artist!
Frida Kahlo.Now that's an artist!
Man, thats SOME eyebrows :D
Man, thats SOME eyebrows :D
Sorry to pick you up on grammar but that's "eybrow!"Who says a gimpy,mono-browed,moustachioed,monkey lovin woman can't be an artist? :D
Who says a gimpy,mono-browed,moustachioed,monkey lovin woman can't be an artist? :D
You'll need to run that past SLOB :D
You'll need to run that past SLOB :D
..............& I would be running! :p
So what is an artist then mate? :D
I have no clue... If I knew that I would be rich. I guess an artist is not what the creators perception is but, is what their audience sees and feels.
Or, an artist can not be defined as a private individual as art by it's nature does not apply to one.
Dunno. What is popular now may never be popular again, of course that could work in the reverse that what we connow consider bollocks could be deemed as art in the future?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.