|
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by snausages on Feb 16, 2010 19:01:47 GMT 1, Jetset, I think you might have just scored an own goal!
Ha LOL
;D ;D ;D
Jetset, I think you might have just scored an own goal! Ha LOL ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by snausages on Feb 16, 2010 19:04:13 GMT 1, I'm not going to attack the LA art scene. There are definitely some good things going on there - and with Deitch leaving NY they have a chance to step up.
But to come out and defend it by saying that LA galleries like Carmichael and Subliminal are why it's good and they're better than anything in NY!? LOL seriously?
I'm not going to attack the LA art scene. There are definitely some good things going on there - and with Deitch leaving NY they have a chance to step up.
But to come out and defend it by saying that LA galleries like Carmichael and Subliminal are why it's good and they're better than anything in NY!? LOL seriously?
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป 0
September 2012
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by jamesreeve5 on Feb 16, 2010 19:20:43 GMT 1, ;D ROMANES EUNT DOMUS well since you asked... Thomas Gainsborough William Hogarth Joshua Reynolds William Blake Alfred Munnings George Stubbs David Hockney Francis Bacon Peter Blake Paula Rego Cornelia Parker
Short list, and with the exception of Blake, Bacon, and Hockney (who did his best work in LA anyways) they are all pretty limited in their historical relevance outside of England.
That's like me saying:
Gilbert Stuart
John Singleton Copley
John Trumbull
Thomas Eakins
James Whistler
Robert Henri
Alfred Steiglitz
Stuart Davis
Ansel Adams
They are admired in their own country, but not much outside of it.
Luckily Rock 'n Roll saved us both, and created the two cultural powerhouses we know today.
;D ROMANES EUNT DOMUS well since you asked... Thomas Gainsborough William Hogarth Joshua Reynolds William Blake Alfred Munnings George Stubbs David Hockney Francis Bacon Peter Blake Paula Rego Cornelia Parker Short list, and with the exception of Blake, Bacon, and Hockney (who did his best work in LA anyways) they are all pretty limited in their historical relevance outside of England. That's like me saying: Gilbert Stuart John Singleton Copley John Trumbull Thomas Eakins James Whistler Robert Henri Alfred Steiglitz Stuart Davis Ansel Adams They are admired in their own country, but not much outside of it. Luckily Rock 'n Roll saved us both, and created the two cultural powerhouses we know today. |
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป 0
September 2012
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by jamesreeve5 on Feb 16, 2010 19:25:16 GMT 1, I was agreeing with you until... Woh ho ho!!!! Easy on the French, we didn't ask for anything here, leave the US/France thingie out of this, right?!  look I'm not knocking france (I love your fries and french letters and snails and frogs legs and toast and cinema and JR and brigitte and laetitia casta, I really do) it's just that some were saying mbw was our Banksy and I was stating that he's actually a transplant, he's not from the US he's from france.. that's all
We did however happily take your Marcel Duchamp... and much thanks for him!
I was agreeing with you until... Woh ho ho!!!! Easy on the French, we didn't ask for anything here, leave the US/France thingie out of this, right?! look I'm not knocking france (I love your fries and french letters and snails and frogs legs and toast and cinema and JR and brigitte and laetitia casta, I really do) it's just that some were saying mbw was our Banksy and I was stating that he's actually a transplant, he's not from the US he's from france.. that's all We did however happily take your Marcel Duchamp... and much thanks for him! |
|
raiden
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 512
๐๐ป 3
April 2008
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by raiden on Feb 18, 2010 11:03:11 GMT 1, James said:
I can only assume you failed to read either of the articles you just gave us all links to.
No I read it, just without a skewed view - plus with background knowledge of world history.
You conclude:
About 50 years difference between the two countries creating anything of worldwide artistic value.
Yet, you completely leave out the rich Anglo-Saxon tradition of Illuminated manuscripts - which is mentioned in the article - with a link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_illuminated_Anglo-Saxon_manuscripts
That's a pretty big artistic achievement to overlook.
Then you glossed over stained glass - of which some of the most important examples in Europe were produced in medieval Britain.
You proceed to quote:
"Very few examples of top-quality English painting on walls or panel have survived from before 1500. Some fragments have survived from paintings in Westminster Abbey, which also has a large portrait of Richard II An example of this period is The Wilton Diptych, also including a portrait of Richard, although this may be by a French artist."
Did it occur to you that just because works didn't survive, doesn't mean they didn't exist! The climate in Britain is substantially less conducive to preservation of panel & paint than Italy and Mediterranean locations.
Plus, perhaps you missed the sentence:
In 1536, the English Reformation, initiated by Henry VIII of England and the subsequent seizure of property in the Dissolution of the Monasteries, resulted in the destruction of much of the art in England and Wales' art tradition, which had previously been under the patronage of the church.
Also as for:
King Charles I was an ambitious patron and amassed one of the best art collections in Europe, but he still had to rely on imported artists, in particular Rubens and Van Dyck
I see massive hypocritical irony in claiming the entirety of Hudson River School and various other immigrant American painters in the 1800s as entirely American, but dismissing all permanent court painters in Britain circa the 1600s (such as van Dyck) as lifelong foreigners. Its like saying the Americans were more gifted at physics than Germany because Einstein was an American. Quite the double standard since America claims every immigrant artists as its own, whereas history tends to label painters not ethnically British as something else.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artists_of_the_Tudor_court
I'll grant, for various reasons, the period from the English Reformation till the the early 1700s was a relatively weak period for British art - because of a billion and one reasons that would take a dissertation to explain.
But back to your original point...
Which you completely abandoned... you wrote:
In all truth, British art came to world prominence around the same time as American art: namely the last 100 years or so.
But now you're left to cite America's Hudson River School from 1820 and the British triumph Gainsborough's Blue Boy from 1770 to make the point that:
About 50 years difference between the two countries creating anything of worldwide artistic value.
Um??? Do you entirely know what you're saying, or just make it up as you go?
Because first you're saying:
o say that British art has a world renowned artistic lineage reaching back hundreds of years is a stretch.
And now you're citing 240 year old examples of world renowned British artists.
James said: I can only assume you failed to read either of the articles you just gave us all links to. No I read it, just without a skewed view - plus with background knowledge of world history. You conclude: About 50 years difference between the two countries creating anything of worldwide artistic value. Yet, you completely leave out the rich Anglo-Saxon tradition of Illuminated manuscripts - which is mentioned in the article - with a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_illuminated_Anglo-Saxon_manuscriptsThat's a pretty big artistic achievement to overlook. Then you glossed over stained glass - of which some of the most important examples in Europe were produced in medieval Britain. You proceed to quote: "Very few examples of top-quality English painting on walls or panel have survived from before 1500. Some fragments have survived from paintings in Westminster Abbey, which also has a large portrait of Richard II An example of this period is The Wilton Diptych, also including a portrait of Richard, although this may be by a French artist." Did it occur to you that just because works didn't survive, doesn't mean they didn't exist! The climate in Britain is substantially less conducive to preservation of panel & paint than Italy and Mediterranean locations. Plus, perhaps you missed the sentence: In 1536, the English Reformation, initiated by Henry VIII of England and the subsequent seizure of property in the Dissolution of the Monasteries, resulted in the destruction of much of the art in England and Wales' art tradition, which had previously been under the patronage of the church. Also as for: King Charles I was an ambitious patron and amassed one of the best art collections in Europe, but he still had to rely on imported artists, in particular Rubens and Van Dyck I see massive hypocritical irony in claiming the entirety of Hudson River School and various other immigrant American painters in the 1800s as entirely American, but dismissing all permanent court painters in Britain circa the 1600s (such as van Dyck) as lifelong foreigners. Its like saying the Americans were more gifted at physics than Germany because Einstein was an American. Quite the double standard since America claims every immigrant artists as its own, whereas history tends to label painters not ethnically British as something else. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artists_of_the_Tudor_courtI'll grant, for various reasons, the period from the English Reformation till the the early 1700s was a relatively weak period for British art - because of a billion and one reasons that would take a dissertation to explain. But back to your original point... Which you completely abandoned... you wrote: In all truth, British art came to world prominence around the same time as American art: namely the last 100 years or so. But now you're left to cite America's Hudson River School from 1820 and the British triumph Gainsborough's Blue Boy from 1770 to make the point that: About 50 years difference between the two countries creating anything of worldwide artistic value. Um??? Do you entirely know what you're saying, or just make it up as you go? Because first you're saying: o say that British art has a world renowned artistic lineage reaching back hundreds of years is a stretch. And now you're citing 240 year old examples of world renowned British artists. |
|
raiden
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 512
๐๐ป 3
April 2008
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by raiden on Feb 18, 2010 11:15:38 GMT 1, Snausages:
But to come out and defend it by saying that LA galleries like Carmichael and Subliminal are why it's good and they're better than anything in NY!? LOL seriously?
I mentioned other things, but yeah... On the whole, I would actually take the openings in LA over the openings in NY over the last 5 years - not the least of which reason being those galleries I mentioned (along with the others) and other big shows.
The point wasn't to try to argue some grander statement of LA's art superiority - but simply to say that to call the scene "tame" is a bit ridiculous as a handful of galleries in LA have hosted some really impressive shows - often earlier than those in NYC.
Several prominent international artists had better (and cheaper priced) shows in LA before ever showing in NY.
Plus, there have been some really well received, long line shows in LA.
As I said, the only gallery in NY that routinely invokes envy is Brooklynite - as they'll get international artists I'm following sometime prior to them showing in LA.
Plus, I think it has to do with rents in NY versus LA, but there just seem to be more galleries in LA hosting artists I'm finding either through this board or art mags.
Snausages: But to come out and defend it by saying that LA galleries like Carmichael and Subliminal are why it's good and they're better than anything in NY!? LOL seriously? I mentioned other things, but yeah... On the whole, I would actually take the openings in LA over the openings in NY over the last 5 years - not the least of which reason being those galleries I mentioned (along with the others) and other big shows. The point wasn't to try to argue some grander statement of LA's art superiority - but simply to say that to call the scene "tame" is a bit ridiculous as a handful of galleries in LA have hosted some really impressive shows - often earlier than those in NYC. Several prominent international artists had better (and cheaper priced) shows in LA before ever showing in NY. Plus, there have been some really well received, long line shows in LA. As I said, the only gallery in NY that routinely invokes envy is Brooklynite - as they'll get international artists I'm following sometime prior to them showing in LA. Plus, I think it has to do with rents in NY versus LA, but there just seem to be more galleries in LA hosting artists I'm finding either through this board or art mags. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by Daniel Silk on Feb 18, 2010 11:47:45 GMT 1, Pretty heavy discussion going on here  way over my head ;D Well done lads!
Pretty heavy discussion going on here way over my head ;D Well done lads! |
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป 0
September 2012
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by jamesreeve5 on Feb 19, 2010 10:28:54 GMT 1, Lol, I didn't know that the non-skewed view of art history placed the insurmountable achievements of illuminated manuscript illustration and stained glass creation ahead of totem pole carving and basket weaving.
And how do you exactly prove the influence of destroyed art? I am not denying that people made art in England, I'm just saying that it wasn't of any worldwide influence. I'm not sure how you can argue the influence of art that was destroyed, since well... it was destroyed... and no grand accounts of its beauty exist.
And as far as saying that British art has only gained worldwide prominence in the last 100 years or so, you're right, I was wrong to say that. Because in actuality (as afroken pointed out) the first British art movement to gain worldwide prominence was actually the YBAs. So that really only makes it the last 20 years. Compare that to the Ab-Ex movement and America pulls into the lead!
Lastly, do you really think that comparing a Flemish painter hired by King Charles' Court to a Jewish man fleeing persecution in Germany is a good analogy? It is the artist, not the collector that gives the painting its identity. Artists do not need to be born in the country to which they claim, however, their art must uniquely reflect a viewpoint that can only come from the place that they call home. Hence when Saatchi buys a Jeff Koons piece, it doesn't make Koons British, but when Marcel Duchamp moves to New York City, declares it the greatest city in the world, and lives a large portion of his life there, a part of him becomes American.
And if the only gallery in NYC that routinely invokes envy from you is Brooklynite, then ignorance is bliss my friend.
Snausages, would you mind checking out this show and letting me know if it's worth the visit when I'm in NY in May?
newmuseum.org/exhibitions/421/skin_fruit_selections_from_the_dakis_joannou_collection
Lol, I didn't know that the non-skewed view of art history placed the insurmountable achievements of illuminated manuscript illustration and stained glass creation ahead of totem pole carving and basket weaving. And how do you exactly prove the influence of destroyed art? I am not denying that people made art in England, I'm just saying that it wasn't of any worldwide influence. I'm not sure how you can argue the influence of art that was destroyed, since well... it was destroyed... and no grand accounts of its beauty exist. And as far as saying that British art has only gained worldwide prominence in the last 100 years or so, you're right, I was wrong to say that. Because in actuality (as afroken pointed out) the first British art movement to gain worldwide prominence was actually the YBAs. So that really only makes it the last 20 years. Compare that to the Ab-Ex movement and America pulls into the lead! Lastly, do you really think that comparing a Flemish painter hired by King Charles' Court to a Jewish man fleeing persecution in Germany is a good analogy? It is the artist, not the collector that gives the painting its identity. Artists do not need to be born in the country to which they claim, however, their art must uniquely reflect a viewpoint that can only come from the place that they call home. Hence when Saatchi buys a Jeff Koons piece, it doesn't make Koons British, but when Marcel Duchamp moves to New York City, declares it the greatest city in the world, and lives a large portion of his life there, a part of him becomes American. And if the only gallery in NYC that routinely invokes envy from you is Brooklynite, then ignorance is bliss my friend. Snausages, would you mind checking out this show and letting me know if it's worth the visit when I'm in NY in May? newmuseum.org/exhibitions/421/skin_fruit_selections_from_the_dakis_joannou_collection |
|
|
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by manchestermike on Feb 19, 2010 10:52:53 GMT 1, There's only one way to settle this UK vs US malarkey to be honest
12th June in Rustenburg
Winner takes all
There's only one way to settle this UK vs US malarkey to be honest
12th June in Rustenburg
Winner takes all
|
|
bert
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 674
๐๐ป 14
August 2007
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by bert on Feb 19, 2010 11:05:47 GMT 1, I thought MBW was a joke project akin to Banksy's Morons to poke fun at the contemporary art market? ie the art is so cruddy, but people will still pay massive money as some hype and manipulation from a group of people give the bad art 'value'? If you're onto the joke and plan to sell and cash in, then fair play.
Or have I misinterpreted things and are people really paying good money for these prints to hang on their walls?
I thought MBW was a joke project akin to Banksy's Morons to poke fun at the contemporary art market? ie the art is so cruddy, but people will still pay massive money as some hype and manipulation from a group of people give the bad art 'value'? If you're onto the joke and plan to sell and cash in, then fair play.
Or have I misinterpreted things and are people really paying good money for these prints to hang on their walls?
|
|
cpo
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 359
๐๐ป 0
December 2006
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by cpo on Feb 19, 2010 12:13:02 GMT 1, There's only one way to settle this UK vs US malarkey to be honest 12th June in Rustenburg Winner takes all
perfect. I have tickets! (though I may not be able to go... )
There's only one way to settle this UK vs US malarkey to be honest 12th June in Rustenburg Winner takes all perfect. I have tickets! (though I may not be able to go... ) |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by Deleted on Feb 21, 2010 11:33:22 GMT 1, Mr Brainwash was recently named by CNN and the New Yorker as THE artist for the upcoming decade. Just wanted to hear your thoughts- Here's my thoughts: this is a complete crock of crap. On the plus side there is an artist very occasionally mentioned in this forum whose work will be held up as the phenomenon of 2010s. And it sure as s**t isnโt Mister Bollockwash. Itโs an artist whose work has already snuck quietly into the mainstream, up the art world ladder and onto the walls of A-list collectors while people like you Mr Cadeallaw have been chasing the copycats and the crap merchants. All will be revealed in the coming months. And when it is, the achievement will be attributable to the artistโs talent and not his ability to the hype himself or nurture a natty handlebar moustache.
Mr Brainwash was recently named by CNN and the New Yorker as THE artist for the upcoming decade. Just wanted to hear your thoughts- Here's my thoughts: this is a complete crock of crap. On the plus side there is an artist very occasionally mentioned in this forum whose work will be held up as the phenomenon of 2010s. And it sure as s**t isnโt Mister Bollockwash. Itโs an artist whose work has already snuck quietly into the mainstream, up the art world ladder and onto the walls of A-list collectors while people like you Mr Cadeallaw have been chasing the copycats and the crap merchants. All will be revealed in the coming months. And when it is, the achievement will be attributable to the artistโs talent and not his ability to the hype himself or nurture a natty handlebar moustache. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by Deleted on Feb 21, 2010 11:35:28 GMT 1, sorry didnt mean to send a blank message. I think i know who you mean... So the big boys have been buying his work! Interesting. Will have to take a look at the current prices and trade me print of his for a canvas.
sorry didnt mean to send a blank message. I think i know who you mean... So the big boys have been buying his work! Interesting. Will have to take a look at the current prices and trade me print of his for a canvas.
|
|
|
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by snausages on Feb 21, 2010 21:10:42 GMT 1, Snausages: But to come out and defend it by saying that LA galleries like Carmichael and Subliminal are why it's good and they're better than anything in NY!? LOL seriously? I mentioned other things, but yeah... On the whole, I would actually take the openings in LA over the openings in NY over the last 5 years - not the least of which reason being those galleries I mentioned
In fact I do think there is some great work going on in California which has a lot to do with their conceptual traditions (UCLA) as well as the Bay Area Figurative Painters of old that has (you might say) a link that has morphed into the Mission Scene. I actually think LA has a chance to Rival NY now but logistically, it's distance from European collectors and the main auctions houses are a negative.
If you like Carmichael and Subliminal more than any gallery in NY that's a personal decision and hardly something to make whole judgements on. I really think they'd be at the bottom of any broader perspective list as to why good things are and have been going on in CA.
The idea that shows in LA (or Portland or SF or Boston or Chicago) predate important (and more expensive) shows in NY isn't shocking at all and quite often the case, so what. And to make judgements on the importance of the scene because they've had shows which have had lines is kind of ridiculous.
If you're just making some personal observations or perspective simply towards the "urban" scene though, then fine, I can't argue with you.
Snausages: But to come out and defend it by saying that LA galleries like Carmichael and Subliminal are why it's good and they're better than anything in NY!? LOL seriously? I mentioned other things, but yeah... On the whole, I would actually take the openings in LA over the openings in NY over the last 5 years - not the least of which reason being those galleries I mentioned In fact I do think there is some great work going on in California which has a lot to do with their conceptual traditions (UCLA) as well as the Bay Area Figurative Painters of old that has (you might say) a link that has morphed into the Mission Scene. I actually think LA has a chance to Rival NY now but logistically, it's distance from European collectors and the main auctions houses are a negative. If you like Carmichael and Subliminal more than any gallery in NY that's a personal decision and hardly something to make whole judgements on. I really think they'd be at the bottom of any broader perspective list as to why good things are and have been going on in CA. The idea that shows in LA (or Portland or SF or Boston or Chicago) predate important (and more expensive) shows in NY isn't shocking at all and quite often the case, so what. And to make judgements on the importance of the scene because they've had shows which have had lines is kind of ridiculous. If you're just making some personal observations or perspective simply towards the "urban" scene though, then fine, I can't argue with you. |
|
|
|
afroken
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,018
๐๐ป 29
February 2009
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by afroken on Feb 21, 2010 21:23:52 GMT 1, Itโs an artist whose work has already snuck quietly into the mainstream, up the art world ladder and onto the walls of A-list collectors while people like you Mr Cadeallaw have been chasing the copycats and the crap merchants. All will be revealed in the coming months. And when it is, the achievement will be attributable to the artistโs talent and not his ability to the hype himself or nurture a natty handlebar moustache.
Judging from most of your posts on this forum and the fact that he doesn't have a handlebar moustache, I assume you mean Charming Baker.
Itโs an artist whose work has already snuck quietly into the mainstream, up the art world ladder and onto the walls of A-list collectors while people like you Mr Cadeallaw have been chasing the copycats and the crap merchants. All will be revealed in the coming months. And when it is, the achievement will be attributable to the artistโs talent and not his ability to the hype himself or nurture a natty handlebar moustache. Judging from most of your posts on this forum and the fact that he doesn't have a handlebar moustache, I assume you mean Charming Baker. |
|
Damien
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 3,324
๐๐ป 284
July 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by Guest on Feb 22, 2010 0:11:07 GMT 1, Itโs an artist whose work has already snuck quietly into the mainstream, up the art world ladder and onto the walls of A-list collectors while people like you Mr Cadeallaw have been chasing the copycats and the crap merchants. All will be revealed in the coming months. And when it is, the achievement will be attributable to the artistโs talent and not his ability to the hype himself or nurture a natty handlebar moustache. Judging from most of your posts on this forum and the fact that he doesn't have a handlebar moustache, I assume you mean Charming Baker.
haha, no hype with charming.
Itโs an artist whose work has already snuck quietly into the mainstream, up the art world ladder and onto the walls of A-list collectors while people like you Mr Cadeallaw have been chasing the copycats and the crap merchants. All will be revealed in the coming months. And when it is, the achievement will be attributable to the artistโs talent and not his ability to the hype himself or nurture a natty handlebar moustache. Judging from most of your posts on this forum and the fact that he doesn't have a handlebar moustache, I assume you mean Charming Baker. haha, no hype with charming. |
|
|
|
Mr Brainwash: THE artist of the 2010's?, by Martin Whatson on Feb 22, 2010 12:19:32 GMT 1, Not having a go at either the US or UK but isn't all amercians (except for a very few natives) immigrants from either Africa, south America, Europe or Asia then? And The UK is far from the country in Europe that has produced the most talented artist the last few hundred years!? It's an interesting discussion but what does it matter what country Picasso, Basquiat, Banksy, Dali, Munch, Mr.Brainwash or DaVinchi is from. They all produced/produce art that some loves and some hates. As simple as that.
Not having a go at either the US or UK but isn't all amercians (except for a very few natives) immigrants from either Africa, south America, Europe or Asia then? And The UK is far from the country in Europe that has produced the most talented artist the last few hundred years!? It's an interesting discussion but what does it matter what country Picasso, Basquiat, Banksy, Dali, Munch, Mr.Brainwash or DaVinchi is from. They all produced/produce art that some loves and some hates. As simple as that.
|
|
way over my head ;D Well done lads!
