This is a page I've put together in conjunction with Ruth Parke, I suppose it doesn't really matter what relevance painting has to the cutting edge world of what art really is.
But all the same still worthwhile taking a look at.
How can painting "be" in today's art world (world of art?)
"What is the argument?" Is it that painting is no longer relevant (a thing of the past / old hat / had it's day) in the contemporary art world? All that post modern stuff!!!
Do you have to shuck off the old to embrace the new? Can "old and new" co-exist or is it necessary to put down one so that the other can flourish? I'd choose co-existence any day (would I ??) R.P.
Most people make too many demands on painting. Painting emerged out of both the sacred and the profane and has a natural affinity with decoration and adornment. Yes, it can be profound, and painters certainly want their own paintings to be more than decoration. But to glean delight and meaning from a painting doesn’t mean that all paintings, to be good or even great, must deliver the profound,
( from the article)
This painting discussion, although fairly irrelevant, keeps cropping up and as such should at least be observed - especially from the standpoint of a painter. Mind doesn't classical music come in for a fair share of similar stick?
I suppose hierarchies have their place, but as part of the system not as creative force. The Medici's didn't do too bad - not so sure about Saatchi. I've worked with some "bodies" that really ought to do the job themselves, considering the amount of control they want to impose and very often end up with a well presented, menial, quite good idea
I’m coming at this from a position of total naivety ( as will become obvious) and I’ve probably missed the point altogether. I found this interesting to read but I can’t quite believe it is a discussion to be had. The ‘cons’ of painting? How can a creative endeavour have ‘cons’? It sounds more like a discussion of what happens to be fashionable than of creativity. The argument that painting has value because of its history…'There’s been a lot of painting for 600 years, so why not keep it going?' I agree it is a pretty weak argument for anything that because we’ve always done it we should carry on doing it. However, there seems to be an underlying implication that having history is a negative thing or that nothing new remains to be done. This is debatable so I don’t think this is an argument against painting. “The only reason I can see to be a painter these days is precisely the existential pointlessness of it” Can’t this be said of ANY creative enterprise? Or about almost ANYTHING. If so, it is also a weak argument in a debate about pros and cons of painting per se. “painting possesses a staying power unlike that of any other art form. Because painting is motionless…” Couldn’t this be said of sculpture? Or maybe this reflects my lack of knowledge. Every discipline has its ‘discourse’ and maybe I’m just not fluent in this one? Basically the whole thing seems like a non-debate. Would this discussion ever be applied to music or theatre? Classical music?? Shakespeare?? -R.P.
I’m coming at this from a position of total naivety ( as will become obvious) and I’ve probably missed the point altogether. I found this interesting to read but I can’t quite believe it is a discussion to be had. The ‘cons’ of painting? How can a creative endeavour have ‘cons’? It sounds more like a discussion of what happens to be fashionable than of creativity. The argument that painting has value because of its history…'There’s been a lot of painting for 600 years, so why not keep it going?' I agree it is a pretty weak argument for anything that because we’ve always done it we should carry on doing it. However, there seems to be an underlying implication that having history is a negative thing or that nothing new remains to be done. This is debatable so I don’t think this is an argument against painting. “The only reason I can see to be a painter these days is precisely the existential pointlessness of it” Can’t this be said of ANY creative enterprise? Or about almost ANYTHING. If so, it is also a weak argument in a debate about pros and cons of painting per se. “painting possesses a staying power unlike that of any other art form. Because painting is motionless…” Couldn’t this be said of sculpture? Or maybe this reflects my lack of knowledge. Every discipline has its ‘discourse’ and maybe I’m just not fluent in this one? Basically the whole thing seems like a non-debate. Would this discussion ever be applied to music or theatre? Classical music?? Shakespeare?? -R.P.
Arguments against painting.
Art reflects "How we live(d)"
How do we live in a digital age of screens and fast moving 24 hour update action?
The awful 24/7 phrase springs to mind.
-ever changing, never completely the same. The age of the passing idea.
Identified "moments", the nudge as good as a wink.
The advert as art, horror as stimulus.
How do we live in a digital age of screens and fast moving 24 hour update action?
The awful 24/7 phrase springs to mind.
-ever changing, never completely the same. The age of the passing idea.
Identified "moments", the nudge as good as a wink.
The advert as art, horror as stimulus.
Where does painting stand here unless as decorative, illustrative craft?
Although painting can be installed into a context - it's only part of that context.
Painting can be informed by other media, but it is only informed toward its own end.
(The Worm Ouroboros - Eddison. Where the worm is continually eating itself in order to perpetuate itself).
Painting can be informed by other media, but it is only informed toward its own end.
(The Worm Ouroboros - Eddison. Where the worm is continually eating itself in order to perpetuate itself).
Painting will eat itself ( continually )
Pollock sewed painting up - It aint heroic anymore!
Okay so: "I feel like it would take a strong pitch to pull me into a gallery again, I want art to be online and in the world, not hidden away in a white-cube cupboard that people trapse to. The internet, books, multiples, processes and objects can be used to take art out into people's lives, and newsfeeds. What use is the gallery now, and what use the anachronistic one-off object of a painting or a sculpture, in the age of mechanical reproduction and internet communication?"
Ruth Parke's Spider Charts
I like the fact that this whole debate overlaps, contradicts and shoots off at tangents. Maybe it would make a good blog post. Drawing in information from various places. Cut up in pieces and then stuck back together as it were. Maybe illustrated! RUTHS CHARTS
The other thing I thought about today was that at the moment what's cool or cutting edge moves in "fads". I shared a work space for a short time with a bloke called John Russel. at that time he was very much into defining why you are about to do something. He in fact wrote a paper on Art & Language, which was an American based movement from the early 70's stating that painting was dead and we had to re-evaluate our terms. Recently I saw him speak and he was saying that what we have to do is "do it and dig it" otherwise we loose it. Ho Hum.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arguments for Painting
I think - too many artists are hung up about what art should be at the moment - Contemporary art doesn't have to be solely about what art is about - I feel that too many young artists are conned into this frame of thought, the doors are (still) wide open and have been since the 60's & there's nothing wrong with that.
Does art have to about "what is the new?" It seems something never seen before is deemed the only way to inform and instruct.
Can't help thinking about that naked emperor. ( R.P.)
The "cons" of painting?
How can a creative process have "cons"? It sounds more like a discussion of what happens to be fashionable than that of creativity. The argument that painting has value because of its history - - -" There's been a lot of painting for 600 years, so why not keep it going?"
I agree that its a pretty weak argument for anything that because we've always done it we should carry on doing it. However there seems to be an underlying implication that having history is a negative thing or that nothing new remains to be done. This is debatable so I don't think that this is an argument against painting.
"The only reason I can see to be a painter these days is exactly the existential pointlessness of it". - Cant this be said of ANY creative enterprise? Or about almost ANYTHING. If so, it is also a weak argument in a debate about pros and cons of painting per se.
"painting possesses a staying power unlike that of any other art form. Because painting is motionless - - " Couldn't this be said of sculpture? R.P.
I think I was in a position of viewing various points of view as to the relevance of painting and how can it exist in today's constipated art hierarchy. Which demands that we need a title for current trend, complete with rules. don't they ever learn?
Hierarchies are useful as a way of organising and getting things done - should it be applied to art though ? That sounds more like a desire to control and wield power. And by whom? -R.P
Howard Hodgkin
I suggest to him that painting and fashion are opposites. What I mean is that while other art forms can fit into contemporary trends, painting has older rules, and has to be slightly timeless to be good. Hodgkin puts it more viscerally: "They're like two dogs snarling at each other."
*
No comments:
Post a Comment