Deleted (8)

I like your avatar, Zara.

There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...

What are you implying by this question? The OP is saying he enjoyed an exhibition that might be of interest to others. Are you suggesting otherwise?

An open-ended question like that will can be interpreted in several ways but to me sounds hostile and not particularly helpful. I do hope I am misreading your tone.

"Love is dead. It was acquired in a hostile takeover by Hallmark & Disney, homegenised, then sold off piece by piece." L Simpson

Interesting post on many levels we can play with -

This is an 'art forum'

'Art' - the task of the artist is to make the human being uncomfortable.

'Forum' - online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages. Or as its USA origin 'a designated space for public expression.

So my purpose in writing the post was to open discussion, yes it was an intentionally open question, as a closed one such as 'yes its good' or 'its shit' would have killed the discussion in its tracks.

The OP could have come back and defended his position as by letting us know why he thought it was good art (or just called me a dick) both would have been acceptable discussion around a subject he felt motivated enough by the art to post about it in the art forum.

The OP was also kind enough to post a link to the work so we could click through and see for ourselves and also comment.

As this is a discussion forum not 'advertising' or 'events' so I presumed at the time he was looking for discussion and not just advertising his mates show.

Art is as you find it - you like it, or you don't like it; its personal. But if posting about it in an art discussion forum please be prepared to be challenged on 'why' you like it.

Re the hostility of the question or post, yes it was a robust challenge but no more than many and less so than your own post.

Misreading my tone I don't think so; free and frank and open discussion should be encouraged, where people are prepared to justify and explain their comments.

As I requested of the OP

As I have to your request

As I would if called a dick (which I think you just did)

Any way many thanks for this morning stimulating banter which I have enjoyed immensely, we must do it again some time.

Oh and I just love your increasingly irate tone in the female Subs posts; please God no one is that thick & they are just doing it for a laugh! (edited to include - sorry they have now been removed so you have missed the fun)

Peace and good will to all this Christmas

xxxxx

Edited 20 Dec 10, 3:16 PM by Studio_G

Just what is your problem? I haven't fallen out with you: I asked a civil question and asked for verification before wading in.

You show me where exactly I called you a dick? It is against the AUP to call names (and childish): it certainly doesn't offer anything constructive to the thread.

What on earth has my contribution to a totally unrelated forum got to do with this thread? Attempting to point score but with no reason.

Asking "are you serious" is not exactly a deep and meaningful debate now is it?

And since when did this forum become one where we cannot recommend exhibitions to others? I think you'll find several of previous threads in here have done just that. Who the hell are you to dictate otherwise?

Now if you want to discuss art, then that's fine and dandy: if you want to behave like a moron, then take it elsewhere, please.

I will not rise to the bait of getting angry at your juvenile post, but instead offer you the chance to demonstrate how you feel one should discuss art. Do you have anything in particular to comment about the exhibition this thread relates to? I'm intrigued now.

"Love is dead. It was acquired in a hostile takeover by Hallmark & Disney, homegenised, then sold off piece by piece." L Simpson

Edited 20 Dec 10, 9:34 PM by MissAnnThropist

As second excellent post just love it so let make a start on a reply but think we need a Q&A format or it will look complicated!

Q - 'Just what is your problem? I haven't fallen out with you: I asked a civil question and asked for verification before wading in.'

A - Good I'm glad as I would not want to fall out with any one, but I'm not sure you are quite getting my sense of humor.

Q - 'You show me where exactly I called you a dick? It is against the AUP to call names (and childish): it certainly doesn't offer anything constructive to the thread.'

A - You did not ever call me a 'dick' it's an absolute indisputable fact – but your question was heavily loaded ☺

Q - 'What on earth has my contribution to a totally unrelated forum got to do with this thread? Attempting to point score but with no reason'.

A - No no no absolutely not it was a 100% genuine appreciation of your acidic humour on another thread I was following. No points were intended to be scored I found it a truly entertaining read, please take praise where its due.

Q - 'Asking "are you serious" is not exactly a deep and meaningful debate now is it?'

A - No it's not but then I was expecting a different debate starting around the quality of the art rather then my ability to open debate. Looking back with hindsight I may well have written something different along the lines of Random Dave.

Q - 'And since when did this forum become one where we cannot recommend exhibitions to others? I think you'll find several of previous threads in here have done just that. Who the hell are you to dictate otherwise?'

A - I have personally recommended exhibitions to via this forum and would encourage it to continue, I never said the post was not correctly placed – just its placement was in a discussion forum; so discussion could be expected.

Q - 'Now if you want to discuss art, then that's fine and dandy: if you want to behave like a moron, then take it elsewhere, please.'

A - I believe you will find that it is against the AUP to call names (and childish): it certainly does not offer anything constructive to the thread.

Q - 'I will not rise to the bait of getting angry at your juvenile post'

A - It's possibly a bit late for that (sorry that was a bit of a low of me)

How to discuss art – best way is free and open debate say what you feel say what the art says to you. Because it's not wrong. If you like 'it' then its good if you don't its something others may appreciate.

Q - 'Do you have anything in particular to comment about the exhibition this thread relates to?'

A - On this particular exhibition I think it was obvious from the start that I don't like the style. But note that since the first time I posted several of the canvases have been sold so I also appreciate that some people like them quite a lot.

But I doubt my 'not liking' will be good enough for you so the reasons behind my dislike are –

I find them very formulistic – i.e. made to a formula for people to buy rather than any artistic merit. (my guess is that his inspiration was 'what will sell' not original art)

i.e. Lots of yellow as it's a color that is easy to live with and people like with a happy chocolate box subject matter of sunny interiors.

Then the style is developed to paint relatively quickly and (I think) is linked heavily and quite deliberately to Van Gough (sorry Van said linked not like) a main stream artist who everyone recognises.

So its not really art more paintings for interior decoration (again good if its what you want and like) if your interested a good comparator to illustrate my meaning I would suggest Glen Brown.

Where the flowing style is similar but of significantly higher quality, then he does not hold back on the subject matter, you could say he links heavily and obviously to the surrealists such as Dali but (I think) this is done to show where the work is influenced rather than just to sell canvases.

So the artistic merit of Glen Browns work becomes significantly higher (in my personal opinion which I understand is not held by everyone)

Does this help & how would you compare and reference the work?

Gx

Edited 22 Dec 10, 8:31 AM by Studio_G