I’m sorry if I mistook it, but it sounded quite condescending to me.
yeah when i read it again it sounded condiscending. but i had written it while thinking this.
i was wondering if you had studied art, because anyone who even knows of nude decsending staircase obviously has art knowledge.
then i was just trying to say that the actual nude decending staircase is pretty unique (IMO it stands out a bit).
i do agree that most cubist works are rather similar looking (and i only knew the name of the one i posted coz it wa in its file name LOL)
i think nude decending staircase is actually the only cubist work i would ever remember the name of.
an6yway wasn’t trying to be offensive, so sorry if i sounded like a pompus arse LOL.
Alltaken
But I’ve seen some concept art and it was very good. It’s on a lot of video games under extras. To consider that Tracey is a good artist when compared to that is plain wrong.
I disagree. I think art can be applied universally, the greats like Da Vinci and Picasso proved this. But I agree that some art may be considered so only on an individual basis. However, people are justifying Tracey’s work and others as art with meaningless phrases and disortations. The reason they feel the need to explain the pieces is because they are on public display. Now, if the pieces have no meaning but the meaning that imaginitive individuals place upon them then I don’t think they should be on public display.
No, I don’t agree. Both concept and traditional art can be and is beautiful today. Beauty and art are timeless. Perhaps your art college teaches it differently or you weren’t paying attention. What I agree on is that there are individuals (like Tracey) who degrade art in such a way that new artists are led to the following opinion of art and that’s what I want to avoid:
That’s very sad coming from an art student.
You’re right - I actually thought of calling it Tracey Emin: artist, fraudster and/or nutcase? but I didn’t think it was quite as catchy. I personally think she’s both of the latter.
When people justifiably disagree with you, it makes it an opinion. Whether you choose to ignore those disagreements or not, the fact is that not everything you say is factual because you believe it to be true.
Thanks for your post rogerm3d, I agree with with you say about the essence of good artwork. I’m not sure CG and photography are the same, though. Photography is capturing the mood of a scene with lighting and premade forms. If anything it is kind of a reality-based subset of CG (they should put that in the dictionary) because there you must build the geometry first and do lighting and texturing - much harder.
“As Emin (quoted in Kent, 2001, 24) suggested of My Bed: ‘It looks like the scene of a crime as if someone has just died or been fucked to death’.”
this is quite a profound, unsettling and disturbing comment if you stop to think. I vote artist
I can always count on you Ditto. Well put.
OSX,
These themes of passion and beauty, and capturing of feeling that you speak so highly of,
are indeed good themes to base art on. But the very idea that the goal of an artist is to “express feelings” is a relatively new concept.
Kant initiated it in the 1700’s. There were no such ideas circulating in the times of DaVinci, or Michelangelo, etc.
The idea was in full force in the 1800’s, the “romantic” era, and then found it’s culmination in “Expressionism” in the late 19th and early 20th century.
I think Tracey’s art falls within the bounds of the expressionist philosophy.
I think it’s funny that now people will talk about Van Gogh, and Picasso, and actually give them credit for their creativity. It’s almost like modern art has to get about 100 years worth of age on it before most people will take it seriously.
And yes, some of what the artworld heralds today, will be totally forgotten crap in the future.
But art has always been like this, people think certain things are important in their own times, and then it’s up to the art historians years later, to see what works really did describe the zeitgest of particular periods.
It’s fine to love a particular kind of art, but realize the relativity of your position. Realize that there are existing philosophies from the past that determine why you like what you like today,
and please realize that expressing feelings in art doesn’t just mean feelings that can be gotten across with beauty. As much as it may seem like the artworld just picks random junk and calls it art, it doesn’t work that way.
There is a constant dialogue going on about what artists are saying, and how they are saying it… and unfortuneately money does play into it sometimes, and everyone hates that. But the dialogue when it is at it’s best, is a genuine attempt to seek out people who are “expressing” important and sometimes disturbing things, in new and different ways.
Note: It’s funny that I’m finding myself defending this kind of work. I usually don’t care for conceptual art at all, (Bruce Nauman can kiss an ass), but I think there is something cool in how Tracey Emin is kind of bending the path that the feminist artists started on in the 70’s.
Just try to freakin’ LOOK at the artworks. Set aside the preconceived notions about what art is, and see if you can hear it talking to you. There is a lot of cool stuff out there.
That’s interesting but these artists were working out of passion despite the lack of ideologies (or documentation thereof) concerning passion being captured in artwork at the time they lived. This actually puts Tracey in a worse light today because we have those ideologies so if nothing else justifies her work then at least her passion should show through. I’m afraid it doesn’t.
That’s a good point but I hope I never see the day when an obscene picture of a dismembered penis or an unmade bed is considered seriously alongside the works of Picasso or Van Gogh.
Doesn’t that suggest it’s crap now? I could see how true art that may have once been considered vile is now considered highly but I don’t think Tracey’s work has the potential for it unless of course the morals and sanity of human civilisation go completely down the toilet. Judging by what the world is like today and the fact that some sane people can actually defend what Emin does, you may well be right.
But I love most kinds of art including modern art. It’s the work of certain individuals that I don’t like. You’re right about existing philosophies determining my likes and dislikes but they are sane, justified philosophies. There is no philosophy on Earth that will ever make me consider waste products to be art.
That’s true, I have seen a few good pieces of art made from junk and there are some good pieces of art that are even ugly but they have meaning and purpose.
disturbing yes, important no. Would the world be any worse off if Tracey hadn’t unleashed her waste? I think not.
What about concept art used in making new video games and cars?
Bending it right round in a U-turn. All she has done is take away some of the respect people had for genuine feminist artists who worked for it.
I have looked at the freakin’ art and I hear it saying junk can make you a fortune if you sell it to the right people. I choose not to listen. You’re right that there is a lot of cool stuff but there is a lot of crap too.
Whaaat? How can you quote that, say it’s unsettling and disturbing and still say she’s an artist? Do you think that those comments she makes work in her favour?
I have a question for you all, what do you think Picasso or Van Gogh would make of Tracey’s work if they were alive today?
Osx, when I’m saying “conceptual art” I’m referring to the art movement, not “concept art”, the two have nothing in common, really.
Oh, and about what Van Gogh or Picasso would think of Emin, that’s a good question. If you’re talking about Picasso in his older years, I don’t think he would dislike the work at all. You could just as easily ask what Caravaggio would think of Van Gogh or Picasso. It’s a matter of the time they lived in.
I can see this thread isn’t really going anywhere. There is no way to change the mind of someone who is already so convinced of their position.
It’s cool though.
I respectfully disagree with your position.
I think the question might not be so much… what would picasso make of this if he were alive, but “what sort of work would picasso be doing if he were alive today?”
I can see you are stunned by my comment earlier. I just got thinking, that given some of Tracey Emin’s personal story, the phrase she used could actually be seen as a raw, blunt, deeply honest and profoundly sad comment on what she was trying to communicate about herself and her experiences. … and its also better than one of those long and tortuous art critic reviews.
I also think Tracey Emin’s style of work is very personal to her. It’s hard to know whether it will last and be referred to as an outstanding work in the history of art. Unlike many other pieces of art which stand alone and can be appreciated without an understanding of the artist themselves, Tracey Emin’s work needs or demands that you have enough curiosity to find out about who she is. I have seen some interviews with her and I was struck by the honesty with which she speaks about herself. The more you learn about her the more difficult it is to conclude that she is trying to defraud anyone.
You could equally apply the question “Vetriano: artist or fraudster?” Is Vetriano putting his heart and soul into communicating something important through art, or simply using his skills (and he is very skilled) to create pretty pictures that will make him a quick fortune?
I agree with laniru. This has been a good thread, lots of very thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. Not sure if there’s much more to add.
Ro me it looks like her art is theraphy for hersel. Something personal. I think it does not fit as publc, it’s like recording your talks with a shrink and call it art…
I would say nutcase after looking at her art.
I imagine that there is a very fine line between “public” art and “personal” therapy sebastian. Where should the line be drawn? I would guess that whichever direction you look, deeply passionate and creative works of art are all untimately personal.
She’s free to do what she want, but I don’t see that it would gain someone to look at her therapy. But maybe it is not strager than the popularity of Reality Shows…
I agree with Ianiru and GCat, I’ve found this discussion very interesting and I’m very grateful to everybody who contributed. I think any further discussion along similar lines would just descend to arguing about irreconcilable differences of opinion.
There’s one thing that I don’t think was discussed fully, though. That was about censoring art. I notice GCat said that Tracey doesn’t need to be censored despite (IMHO) some of her art being obscene. But lets examine the case if we had no censorship:
Imagine that I produce an image of a child engaging in a violent, sexual act and try to display it publicly. I could argue that it is art because lets say I was abused as a child and the picture shows my anger towards that, but I’m sure that people would attempt to censor it because of its inherent obscenity.
Lets go for an ‘artistic’ image and say I scrawl the words “I despise black people!” in black paint on a white canvas. Some may say that it’s art because of the fact that the words are painted in black and therefore it is ironic that the black paint is displaying the message that is so demeaning to black people whereas the white canvas is neutral. Is it art because I say so? Would you try to censor it?
Do we have the right to censor art and if so who decides what is and is not acceptable? There was an ‘artist’ once who photographed her children urinating. Would you accept that as art or not?
Also, I would like to hear about Valarking’s comment about John Cage and his 4’33" of musical silence. I know some of you may be more open-minded when it comes to the artworld but would you accept silence as a musical masterpiece?
There’s laws that regulates what you are allowed to do, those laws say that you can not agitate against an ethnic group. That is enough, art is no different than any other expression.
If it is legal I would have to change the laws to censor it, but it isn’t.
But I’ve seen some concept art and it was very good. It’s on a lot of video games under extras. To consider that Tracey is a good artist when compared to that is plain wrong.[/quote]
I’m afraid you have “concept art” and “conceptual art” mixed up buddy
How long ago did you get your degree???
That’s very sad coming from an art student.[/quote]
Bollocks… it’s the most liberating thing ever… Art is a term, the day you give it meaning beyond that and try to create it in a solid object you’re lost in a mess you’ll not untangle.
Osx… you seem quite intelligent and make some good points, but I wonder what age you are and if you are still in art college today. I’m not trying to sound dismissive or anything, but I would have agreed with you completely a little short of a decade ago. And of course, I could simply have gone nuts since 
Oh and of course. In a perfect world art should be uncensored, but in that perfect world everything would be uncensored. But then… we do not live in that world and there’s far too many nutcases out there to just let everybody go. Of course we need to censor art. And we should have quite a few artists commited. I remember a certain Iranian artist proudly showing me slides of him and his girlfriend masturbating in a grotesk fashion… lovely… but not art and I didn’t really want to see it. Then the next week he did an art performance where he got naked and took a shit on a big piece of paper in the middle of a public hallway, then started playing with his poo… lovely… but not art and I didn’t really want to see it.
John Cage’s silence was an amazing conceptual piece. And of course the crowd didn’t get it and got into a frenzy. A piece like that is only valid once and in the moment when it’s done. If you’d do that today, you’d just be sad… same thing for most impressionist art, or things like mondriaan made… the relevance has come and gone… we can regard it relative to the time it was made and see that it was brilliant when it was done. But if someone made that today… they’d just be silly.
Well said, macouno
Sorry, those phrases looked exactly the same to me. I didn’t know they were different things. 
I don’t have an art degree, I’m afraid - I have a Computer Science degree but I have always done traditional art as a hobby, hence I do 3D art. What I meant when I said that your art college maybe teaches it differently was that it may teach you things that differ from common sense. I just can’t believe that an art college could teach that art shouldn’t be beautiful. On second thoughts, the fact that Tracey Emin is an art professor somewhere that might be true. But doesn’t that make you angry? How do you personally value art?
No, I don’t agree there. We could say the same about anything. We give meanings to objects to define what they are. If I buy a bus and drive across a toll booth, I have to pay extra. I argue that what I’m driving is a car and I should pay less. It won’t happen because there are certain qualities that define what a bus is. There are similarly qualities that define what art is. Here’s the dictionary definition (look at the 3rd definition down):
I’m 22. Can I ask if it was going to art college that changed your opinion of art like Emin’s. Do you think that you decided to accept that art based on your own opinion or because you had to accept it to get through the course? It sounds like you hate Tracey’s work as much as I do by labelling the majority of conceptual art as utter crap.
I agree. But, how do you define what should be censored? Take Sebastian’s argument:
Ok, take the picture of the woman with the dismembered penis on the ground. Surely that’s taking a stab at the entire male gender. Do you think that if a man degraded a woman in a similar fashion that he would be considered an artist? Of course not. Take Larry Flynt who published Hustler with the picture of a woman being churned in a meat grinder. Is he considered an artist? No, he is a pornographer. In my opinion, Tracey Emin is no more an artist than Larry Flynt.
But you’ve just contradicted yourself. Here you are saying that the examples you describe are not art. So, I can take the argument by which most justify Emin’s work and say that those works are art because that Iranian says they are. I just want to know where you draw the line between what you define as art and what you don’t.
But I don’t understand how something worthless and meaningless becomes art based solely on the fact you were the first to do it. I wonder if that Iranian was the first to crap on a piece of paper in the context of art. That sort of thing then makes art like the guiness book of records. Does anyone care that someone can eat so many hundred cold baked beans in so many minutes using only a toothpick?
O geez… a lot of points to reply to…
Yup it sounded like you said you were studying at an art academy… no problems… Art academies in the “west” teach art a certain way and it sounded like you agreed with them… but then you don’t like Tracy Emin so… you don’t.
Concept art is like a scetch made before you make a 3d model.
Conceptual art is art in which only the underlying idea matters… which is what Tracey Emin basicly does, and is what is tought at art academies nowadays.
You say that my reasoning that “art” is a term only doesn’t work… But basicly the way I view the word art is like I view the word love… Everybody somehow has a basic understanding what it is, but no truly worldwide valid description… That is because it isn’t descriptive like “chair”… but the word envelopes a plethora of meanings… “loving your mother” and “loving coffee in the morning” are two completely different things. Yet they are both love. And where you draw that line is up to you.
Same thing with art… there’s art in a well made muffin… there’s art in a painting by dali (even though he was a prick)…
Dictionaries are helpfull, but unless everybody uses their terminology exactly as described in a dictionary it doesn’t work. And people rarely do.
The Art Academy hasn’t changed my opinion of tracey emin… I was tought there to analise that sort of art and to see the value in it. And I still recognise that.
See it’s not that you’re “not allowed” to make beautifull work nowadays. It’s that all the emphasis is on the underlying idea of an artwork… and anything that distracts from that should not be put into the piece. So students are tought to make ideas and statements… not pretty pictures. For example… if I were to bolt a couple pieces of metal together… they’d ask… “why bolts, what do they mean?”
And if they weren’t supposed to mean anything… then why put them in… you should have welded it then…
That is basicly the thought pattern.
The result is I have two sets of values where art is concerned… I know the art critics view and can use it when I want… but what’s next to my heart is beautifull/interesting/fun things… and it took me years after graduating to reach a point where I was really free to pursue not the “right art” but “my art”.
I’m glad I don’t have to decide what to censor… I think common sense should guide the way…
What I don’t understand about a lot of the “nasty looking art which is critical of the world” is why one would make it.
See in the end we all have to choose what we want our legacy to be.
I know I’m starting to sound corny and christian… and I am neither…
But I think that a lot of artists by reacting to horrors in the world and displaying them do little good. Every time there’s a war on somewhere there’s a gallery having a show about war… it’s rather cheap and doesn’t make a difference at all.
In stead I think you’re better off, showing people the right way, than showing them what they are doing wrong. It’s a much more effective way of shaping your surroundings.
1 more thing…
John cage… It wasn’t because he was the first… it was… well… See though on the sheet music it said silence for a certain number of bars in a certain tempo… that was silence for the piano… in a way he composed the noise from the audience.
But yes you are right… being the first matters to a lot of artists/buyers/galleries… and it’s quite sad… and no the iranian certainly wasn’t the first to crap in a hallway, and I’m afraid thousands will follow him yet 
What we have to realise is that a lot of professional artists are nutcases… they are basicly people that don’t communicate very well, thus try to use visual art in stead of speech… I’ve met them… they’re there.
That whilst artists should be very skilled in communication so they can excell in visual communication as well as verbally… It’s like people selling “art” made by kids with downs syndrome as if it was made by jackson pollock… just cause they can’t see the difference…
Is there a difference… I dunno… I truly don’t…
Good post Macouno, you make some very interesting points.
This part I found most interesting. I agree with you here when you say that the definition of art has a certain ambiguity similar to love and that dictionaries can’t really have the last word. I guess I just want there to be less ambiguity in art so that people don’t have to go through the experience of watching Iranians crapping in hallways. I just think it’s the ambiguity in art that leads people to think they can define anything as art. If we follow that then we get to a point where no-one knows what is art and what isn’t.
It’s exactly like love though. Is a guy who says he loves a girl really in love or does he just want to get laid? Does Emin want to project some great philosophical meaning or just get loads of money for doing nothing? I would like to believe Emin is not a fraudster but as you said, why would she produce some of the work she does?
Well, you seem to know your stuff. Could you maybe offer a short description of the meaning of say, Emin’s unmade bed? I’m just curious to see what a real art student makes of it.
I can understand that concept but I would have thought that shocking art would distract people more from any ideas the artist wanted to convey. I’m sure a lot of people would turn their heads in disgust - in that case they never get a chance to look for any ideas that might be there.
But why allow the art critic view at all? Shouldn’t you always judge art by what you feel? After all, isn’t that how you arrive at your personal definition of love?
Don’t we all have to decide what to censor on a personal level, though and common levels of personal censorship lead to publicly acceptable levels of censorship? Like child pornography or bestiality, we all make a choice through a common perception of morality what should and should not be censored.
I wish it was the same way with art but then artists play their mind games and say that the art is actually the reaction you have to the shocking imagery. Remember the art students who pretended they spent their grant money on trips abroad and caused public outrage? Then they later said they didn’t but it was to provoke the reaction. I don’t like that sort of thing. Like you said about the war stuff, “it’s rather cheap and doesn’t make a difference at all.”
Presumably the noise of the audience as they left thinking the concert was over, lol.
Lol 
Well, I think all artists try to communicate something through their work. But I just wish they were more eloquent when it came to justifying their work. I’m sure you’ve read what Emin said of some of her work. I could accept people like Emin as artists if they actually explained what they meant by making their piece rather than rely on pretentious art critics (I’m sure you’ve met some) who pick out any possible meaning that could exist for the piece to validate its position in the art community.
Simply, Tracey Emin is a bitch.
Its all about clever marketing and hype. And its art, but seriously folks, if you think a penis and a naked lady on a bed is great art then you need a slap. Its perversive and demonstrates the idea that if its naked and volger then its clever and therefore diserves a thumbs up. Lowering class everyday, Thanks Tracey, - bitch.