| Author | Message | ||
     Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 81.155.107.64 |
I note that Richard Wright has just won the Turner Prize 2009. Intriguing that all his work is painted direct on to walls and later erased. There is something nice about uncollectables and ephemerality, something socialistic? A bit like spreading one's work on the easily erasable internet? Although human nature makes me want my work in print, too!  | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.27.75 |
If I had to choose I would have chosen the below. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234013/Turner-Prize-winner-Richard-Wrig ht-shocks-world-actual-art.html | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 81.155.107.64 |
Does this mean you are agreeing with Richard Wright winning, Ally? | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.27.75 |
Sorry - Des. Meant to add this.... 'Roger Hiorns, 34, who had been favourite to win, filled a disused London bedsit with 75,000 litres of copper sulphate, transforming it into a grotto encrusted with an intense blue layer of crystals.' | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
>>Intriguing that all his work is painted direct on to walls and later erased. There is something nice about uncollectables and ephemerality, something socialistic?<< Hmmm, I have to disagree there, Des. As a compulsive collector and one who hates to see things like old buildings being demolished (our Council is good at that), I'm afraid I was shocked when they said he'd be destroying it later. I just hate to see works of art (whether art, literature, architecture, etc) vandalised like that. Nice to see something more artistic than the usual unmade bed/pickled animal rubbish they tend to go for (I prefer classical art, in case you can't tell!) | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.121.214.114 |
I think it's just an excuse so he can do the same thing over and over and it won't be noticed | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 81.155.107.64 |
Carolie, Weber is right. I think it is the artist's own decision to paint over his own work. Presumably to allow more of his art to be painted on it. I don't think that is vandalism but Green Art (especially when you can take photos of it). | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
"Vandalism" is the way I feel about destroying any works of art - that's just a personal thing of mine. I can see your point about "green art" and taking photos of it too, but my own personal opinion is it's just not the same. For example, let's look at my example above about what Bradford Council has done/is still doing in the city centre. We used to have some amazing old Victorian buildings - now all demolished to make way for concrete and glass shopping centres/offices which no-one wants to rent. But there are still photos of the old buildings ... but they just aren't the same as the real thing in my book. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.121.214.114 |
Des I didn't mean it in a positive way. I just think he's doing it so he can repeat himself as often as possible and doesn't need to be creative more than a couple of times. Noone will notice coz the last one's been painted over. He's cheating on his creativity with deviousness. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 81.155.107.64 |
And that 'deviousness' (if true) is a wonderful new concept of art...possibly Caroline, demolishing nice architecture for nasty is not the same as an artist painting over his own paintings time and time again. The first is indeed vandalism. The second is something else, not sure what, though. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.155.203.48 |
I was once shocked by those artists who bought some paintings by Hitler and painted over them. I thought it was wrong. I prefer to see my pictures in books rather than on walls. I don't mind that they're much smaller. In fact, big pictures in galleries can often frighten me (a real thing; Stendhal's Syndrome it's called, or something). | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
>>Caroline, demolishing nice architecture for nasty is not the same as an artist painting over his own paintings time and time again.<< Hmmm, still not sure I agree with you, Des - sorry! To me, destroying art, burning or trashing books, demolishing buildings - it's all the same. I guess perhaps you can enjoy art as pictures in books just as much as the real thing? But I'm not so sure. For example, I adore Richard Dadd's painting "The Faerie Feller's Master Stroke". I'd seen it in books and liked it then, but when you see the actual picture hanging on the wall in the gallery - wow, the colours, the texture - it just blows you away! Similarly, I'd seen and enjoyed many of MC Escher's strange drawings in books, but I was really pleased to get the chance to see some of them close up in a gallery when they were exhibited close to us one time. Tony - you really miss out I think in not seeing these pictures "in the flesh". But, Des, let's agree to differ. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 81.155.107.64 |
Well, Caroline, let's agree to agree! Painting over a Dadd painting is sacrilege. And I love paintings in galleries. But Mr X painting over his own paintings to win the Turner prize seems something quite different... a bit Dadaistic. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
>>But Mr X painting over his own paintings to win the Turner prize seems something quite different... a bit Dadaistic<< Ah, point taken!  |