Urban Art Association

Must watch TV - The Mona Lisa Curse C4 6.30pm, by eddiedangerous on Sept 22, 2008 7:29:27 GMT 1,

Sept 22, 2008 6:55:27 GMT 1 pezlow said:

It really surprises me how many people agreed with Hughes. Whilst I can see that many of his arguments were superficially attractive - art is all about money and consumerism and not about the art I think that there is a real snobbery underlying his critique.

Hughes' halcyon era for the art world seems to be the 1960's pre warhol. It is worth reminding ourselves that at this time art was an almost exclusively eliteist pastime. Visitor numbers at galleries and museums were a tiny percentage of what they are now and the ownership of art was restricted to a tiny elite. Because of this any new art movement tended to suffer from critical disdain and public humiliation. The minimalists particularly suffered at the hands of the popular press - Carl Andre's brick etc etc.

Then along came the pop artists and the mass production of works of art that were accessible and fun. And people started to recognise that they could have something more than an athena poster on their wall. They actually started to visit galleries and museums and appreciate art.

Then, in the UK we had sensation at the royal academy. Here was a new vibrant, young scene which people could identify. Sure they didn't like all the artwork but suddenly they felt that artists were actually saying something that they could understand and appreciate. It still got criticised in the Daily Mail of course but gradually the public opinion of contemporary art began to change.

So now you have a situation where contemporary art is one of the largest growing leisure pursuits in the western world. More people visit the Tate Modern each year than visit Alton Towers. And of course some people want to own this art and display it on their walls. And what is wrong with that???

Perhaps we should all go back to Hughes halcyon time. If we did though this forum wouldn't exist and [glow=red,2,300]most of the members on it would probably have the 21st century equivalent of athena posters on their wall[/glow].

um, drums fingers looking around flat.
pictures on walls is the athena of the 21st century!!!

i liked the show however I think similar distain has always been apparent throughout time with new artistic movements. very few new art movements have been embraced by their contemporary audience, and if they had the means to replicate images back in the high rennaissance I am sure they would have done. technology is one of the main driving forces in art as it is in most sectors. and with new technology comes new forms of art. i think he wouldrather we all had blank walls, and only had museum walls to admire!!! looking forward to parts 2 and 3 though!!!!

Sept 22, 2008 6:55:27 GMT 1 pezlow said:

It really surprises me how many people agreed with Hughes. Whilst I can see that many of his arguments were superficially attractive - art is all about money and consumerism and not about the art I think that there is a real snobbery underlying his critique.

Hughes' halcyon era for the art world seems to be the 1960's pre warhol. It is worth reminding ourselves that at this time art was an almost exclusively eliteist pastime. Visitor numbers at galleries and museums were a tiny percentage of what they are now and the ownership of art was restricted to a tiny elite. Because of this any new art movement tended to suffer from critical disdain and public humiliation. The minimalists particularly suffered at the hands of the popular press - Carl Andre's brick etc etc.

Then along came the pop artists and the mass production of works of art that were accessible and fun. And people started to recognise that they could have something more than an athena poster on their wall. They actually started to visit galleries and museums and appreciate art.

Then, in the UK we had sensation at the royal academy. Here was a new vibrant, young scene which people could identify. Sure they didn't like all the artwork but suddenly they felt that artists were actually saying something that they could understand and appreciate. It still got criticised in the Daily Mail of course but gradually the public opinion of contemporary art began to change.

So now you have a situation where contemporary art is one of the largest growing leisure pursuits in the western world. More people visit the Tate Modern each year than visit Alton Towers. And of course some people want to own this art and display it on their walls. And what is wrong with that???

Perhaps we should all go back to Hughes halcyon time. If we did though this forum wouldn't exist and [glow=red,2,300]most of the members on it would probably have the 21st century equivalent of athena posters on their wall[/glow].

um, drums fingers looking around flat.
pictures on walls is the athena of the 21st century!!!

i liked the show however I think similar distain has always been apparent throughout time with new artistic movements. very few new art movements have been embraced by their contemporary audience, and if they had the means to replicate images back in the high rennaissance I am sure they would have done. technology is one of the main driving forces in art as it is in most sectors. and with new technology comes new forms of art. i think he wouldrather we all had blank walls, and only had museum walls to admire!!! looking forward to parts 2 and 3 though!!!!