|
|
Hirst on 4od, by thegreatarchitect on Apr 5, 2012 11:51:50 GMT 1, So a major retrospective of your art in the Tate and you get a fan to present it. All it means is that Hirst is a coward. To have someone with no critical insight on the work except to say 'I think you're great' just shows that Hirst is scared to stand by his work and give his own insight and reasoning, and not just say it is conceptual art and leave it at that. The programme cannot be taken seriously and Noel Fielding was far from a decent choice which was obvious to nearly everyone who wasted an hour watching the programme. As far as it being a sell out, well I don't think that means anything. We know there are enough fools out there that buy Hirst's work, now they will be more who will see it for what it is, manufactured rubbish. Hirst didn't choose the presenter and they gave Sewell plenty of airtime, did you actually watch it or do you spend your time being obnoxious for the sake of it? It was not a programme to be taken seriously, it was a continuation in channel 4's production value of making art more accessible, using 'popular' figures to show art is not as 'high brow' as many might boosh fans may have believed, opening up art to the uneducated through an entertainer doing the interviewing rather than Sewell using allof his courtauld educated art critique is to be applauded. However if you wish to enjoy stuffy programming like that, just wait for the BBC culture show review, which will no doubt contain much more of the cynicism you look for in any contemporary review. Thats the beauty of broadcasting, I suggest you stay away from 4 as they take a very pop view of the whole thing and use Noel Fielding and Kathy Burke rather than Mark Kermode (who I like) or Alaistar Sooke (worse than Fielding in my eyes). Your eyes are closed and you can enjoy yourself over at tate britain, or maybe get yourself down to Margate, The turner has a turner show on and stop wasting your time moaning on a contemporary art forum? Just a thought
Do you think 4 will use Mr. Noel to narrate The secret language of the Renaissance, or maybe Kathy Burke to decode the hidden symbolism of Italian art in order to make it more accessible. Hisrt's work is not that deep that we need it being made more accessible rather a clearer understanding that it has no contemplative value and that the later work is money making rubbish
So a major retrospective of your art in the Tate and you get a fan to present it. All it means is that Hirst is a coward. To have someone with no critical insight on the work except to say 'I think you're great' just shows that Hirst is scared to stand by his work and give his own insight and reasoning, and not just say it is conceptual art and leave it at that. The programme cannot be taken seriously and Noel Fielding was far from a decent choice which was obvious to nearly everyone who wasted an hour watching the programme. As far as it being a sell out, well I don't think that means anything. We know there are enough fools out there that buy Hirst's work, now they will be more who will see it for what it is, manufactured rubbish. Hirst didn't choose the presenter and they gave Sewell plenty of airtime, did you actually watch it or do you spend your time being obnoxious for the sake of it? It was not a programme to be taken seriously, it was a continuation in channel 4's production value of making art more accessible, using 'popular' figures to show art is not as 'high brow' as many might boosh fans may have believed, opening up art to the uneducated through an entertainer doing the interviewing rather than Sewell using allof his courtauld educated art critique is to be applauded. However if you wish to enjoy stuffy programming like that, just wait for the BBC culture show review, which will no doubt contain much more of the cynicism you look for in any contemporary review. Thats the beauty of broadcasting, I suggest you stay away from 4 as they take a very pop view of the whole thing and use Noel Fielding and Kathy Burke rather than Mark Kermode (who I like) or Alaistar Sooke (worse than Fielding in my eyes). Your eyes are closed and you can enjoy yourself over at tate britain, or maybe get yourself down to Margate, The turner has a turner show on and stop wasting your time moaning on a contemporary art forum? Just a thought Do you think 4 will use Mr. Noel to narrate The secret language of the Renaissance, or maybe Kathy Burke to decode the hidden symbolism of Italian art in order to make it more accessible. Hisrt's work is not that deep that we need it being made more accessible rather a clearer understanding that it has no contemplative value and that the later work is money making rubbish |
|
|
|
Hirst on 4od, by My Name is Frank on Apr 5, 2012 13:54:48 GMT 1, I don't think they'll be showing the secret language of the renaissance on their prime time slot any time soon, Why is it so hard to make a really simple point with you lot? HAve you got cloth in your ears (eyes I guess this being a forum). I'm having to drench the point in shallow statements and still you completely miss it, glad you're not my architect. To be clear, tyhe complaint was Hirst and presenter so
CHANNEL4 - AUDIENCE AGES ABOUT 20-50 MEDIUM INTEREST IN ART AND CULTURE BUT NOT TOO FUSSED ABOUT THE DEEPER DETAIL AND NEED TO BE ENTERTAINED IN A LIGHT HEARTED FASHION. PROMOTE HIRST IN A LIGHT WAY, USE NOEL FIELDING, PEOPLE GET AN INSIGHT FROM THE ARTIST, NOT TOO DEEP = PRIME TIME 4 VIEWING
That's all I'm trying to say, it was decent programming for that audience, of which clearly neither architect or the other guy are, so why go trolling about it all, just give it a rest, a simple 'this programme was not for me because I don't really rate Hirst as an artist' would have sufficed, instead of supposition and over inflated opinions on an artist based on your owbn perceptions of what art is.
I don't think they'll be showing the secret language of the renaissance on their prime time slot any time soon, Why is it so hard to make a really simple point with you lot? HAve you got cloth in your ears (eyes I guess this being a forum). I'm having to drench the point in shallow statements and still you completely miss it, glad you're not my architect. To be clear, tyhe complaint was Hirst and presenter so
CHANNEL4 - AUDIENCE AGES ABOUT 20-50 MEDIUM INTEREST IN ART AND CULTURE BUT NOT TOO FUSSED ABOUT THE DEEPER DETAIL AND NEED TO BE ENTERTAINED IN A LIGHT HEARTED FASHION. PROMOTE HIRST IN A LIGHT WAY, USE NOEL FIELDING, PEOPLE GET AN INSIGHT FROM THE ARTIST, NOT TOO DEEP = PRIME TIME 4 VIEWING
That's all I'm trying to say, it was decent programming for that audience, of which clearly neither architect or the other guy are, so why go trolling about it all, just give it a rest, a simple 'this programme was not for me because I don't really rate Hirst as an artist' would have sufficed, instead of supposition and over inflated opinions on an artist based on your owbn perceptions of what art is.
|
|
curiousgeorge
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,833
๐๐ป 1,091
March 2007
|
Hirst on 4od, by curiousgeorge on Apr 5, 2012 14:10:41 GMT 1, i watched it last night, made me want to see the exhibition, looks class
Mission accomplished
Which I think is the point Leftery has been trying to make
i watched it last night, made me want to see the exhibition, looks class Mission accomplished Which I think is the point Leftery has been trying to make |
|
aj2010
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 363
๐๐ป 13
September 2010
|
Hirst on 4od, by aj2010 on Apr 6, 2012 14:41:17 GMT 1, I don't think they'll be showing the secret language of the renaissance on their prime time slot any time soon, Why is it so hard to make a really simple point with you lot? HAve you got cloth in your ears (eyes I guess this being a forum). I'm having to drench the point in shallow statements and still you completely miss it, glad you're not my architect. To be clear, tyhe complaint was Hirst and presenter so CHANNEL4 - AUDIENCE AGES ABOUT 20-50 MEDIUM INTEREST IN ART AND CULTURE BUT NOT TOO FUSSED ABOUT THE DEEPER DETAIL AND NEED TO BE ENTERTAINED IN A LIGHT HEARTED FASHION. PROMOTE HIRST IN A LIGHT WAY, USE NOEL FIELDING, PEOPLE GET AN INSIGHT FROM THE ARTIST, NOT TOO DEEP = PRIME TIME 4 VIEWING That's all I'm trying to say, it was decent programming for that audience, of which clearly neither architect or the other guy are, so why go trolling about it all, just give it a rest, a simple 'this programme was not for me because I don't really rate Hirst as an artist' would have sufficed, instead of supposition and over inflated opinions on an artist based on your owbn perceptions of what art is.
Your comments about Channel 4 are ridiculous, and probably insulting. Unless I missed the introduction that said "And now on Channel 4 we have have a frivilous look at Damian 'I love spots' Hirst with TV's surrealist clown and funny hat wearer Noel Fielding, in a shallow look at some exhibition he has got on somewhere. This programme may contain art so should not be viewed by anyone with anything but a small amount of intelligence'
Oh I have just read what it said on 4oD about the programme, and they seem to think it was a serious documentary which they believe "provides an opportunity to re-examine Hirst's work and see how it has permeated the cultural conciousness of our times"
Ha ha, fancy them using big words like permeated and conciousness. I can only assume they used crayons when they wrote that down.
I don't think they'll be showing the secret language of the renaissance on their prime time slot any time soon, Why is it so hard to make a really simple point with you lot? HAve you got cloth in your ears (eyes I guess this being a forum). I'm having to drench the point in shallow statements and still you completely miss it, glad you're not my architect. To be clear, tyhe complaint was Hirst and presenter so CHANNEL4 - AUDIENCE AGES ABOUT 20-50 MEDIUM INTEREST IN ART AND CULTURE BUT NOT TOO FUSSED ABOUT THE DEEPER DETAIL AND NEED TO BE ENTERTAINED IN A LIGHT HEARTED FASHION. PROMOTE HIRST IN A LIGHT WAY, USE NOEL FIELDING, PEOPLE GET AN INSIGHT FROM THE ARTIST, NOT TOO DEEP = PRIME TIME 4 VIEWING That's all I'm trying to say, it was decent programming for that audience, of which clearly neither architect or the other guy are, so why go trolling about it all, just give it a rest, a simple 'this programme was not for me because I don't really rate Hirst as an artist' would have sufficed, instead of supposition and over inflated opinions on an artist based on your owbn perceptions of what art is. Your comments about Channel 4 are ridiculous, and probably insulting. Unless I missed the introduction that said "And now on Channel 4 we have have a frivilous look at Damian 'I love spots' Hirst with TV's surrealist clown and funny hat wearer Noel Fielding, in a shallow look at some exhibition he has got on somewhere. This programme may contain art so should not be viewed by anyone with anything but a small amount of intelligence' Oh I have just read what it said on 4oD about the programme, and they seem to think it was a serious documentary which they believe "provides an opportunity to re-examine Hirst's work and see how it has permeated the cultural conciousness of our times" Ha ha, fancy them using big words like permeated and conciousness. I can only assume they used crayons when they wrote that down. |
|
klyde
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,125
๐๐ป 501
May 2007
|
Hirst on 4od, by klyde on Apr 6, 2012 14:56:33 GMT 1, i watched it last night, made me want to see the exhibition, looks class
Funny as I think the exact opposite!
Made me not want to bother as I feel I have now seen it.
A painted spot is a painted spot after all. Also if I wanted to see butterflys I would go to a butterfly house.
Best piece by far is "A thousand years" but again, I dont feel the need to see it as the impact has already happened from seeing it described on TV.
Suppose the skull would be worth a peek purely down to the price tag.
In terms of the show, Noel was pretty clueless, but like someone said earlier he is just a fan and was clearly pretty nervous.
His most stupid question was -
"Were you born obssessed with death"
Hirst said
"No, I didnt know about death until I was about 7"
Haha!
i watched it last night, made me want to see the exhibition, looks class Funny as I think the exact opposite! Made me not want to bother as I feel I have now seen it. A painted spot is a painted spot after all. Also if I wanted to see butterflys I would go to a butterfly house. Best piece by far is "A thousand years" but again, I dont feel the need to see it as the impact has already happened from seeing it described on TV. Suppose the skull would be worth a peek purely down to the price tag. In terms of the show, Noel was pretty clueless, but like someone said earlier he is just a fan and was clearly pretty nervous. His most stupid question was - "Were you born obssessed with death" Hirst said "No, I didnt know about death until I was about 7" Haha! |
|
|
|
|
|
claret
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 73
๐๐ป 16
November 2011
|
Hirst on 4od, by claret on Apr 6, 2012 19:46:57 GMT 1,
If you find anything Sewell says interesting I think your on the wrong forum. We all know his opinions of banksy and all things grafitti/ street art.
If you find anything Sewell says interesting I think your on the wrong forum. We all know his opinions of banksy and all things grafitti/ street art. |
|
|
|
Hirst on 4od, by thegreatarchitect on Apr 7, 2012 13:50:20 GMT 1, I don't think they'll be showing the secret language of the renaissance on their prime time slot any time soon, Why is it so hard to make a really simple point with you lot? HAve you got cloth in your ears (eyes I guess this being a forum). I'm having to drench the point in shallow statements and still you completely miss it, glad you're not my architect. To be clear, tyhe complaint was Hirst and presenter so CHANNEL4 - AUDIENCE AGES ABOUT 20-50 MEDIUM INTEREST IN ART AND CULTURE BUT NOT TOO FUSSED ABOUT THE DEEPER DETAIL AND NEED TO BE ENTERTAINED IN A LIGHT HEARTED FASHION. PROMOTE HIRST IN A LIGHT WAY, USE NOEL FIELDING, PEOPLE GET AN INSIGHT FROM THE ARTIST, NOT TOO DEEP = PRIME TIME 4 VIEWING That's all I'm trying to say, it was decent programming for that audience, of which clearly neither architect or the other guy are, so why go trolling about it all, just give it a rest, a simple 'this programme was not for me because I don't really rate Hirst as an artist' would have sufficed, instead of supposition and over inflated opinions on an artist based on your owbn perceptions of what art is.
You are absolutely right. '' This programme was not for me, because i dont really rate Hirst FULL STOP''. but my own opinion on art is not an opinion base on a limited subjectivity, but on an objective knowledge of what distinguishes art from wall decoration, Nor do I go troll, As for the architect bit, That's about God not buildings or building buildings. Thank you
I don't think they'll be showing the secret language of the renaissance on their prime time slot any time soon, Why is it so hard to make a really simple point with you lot? HAve you got cloth in your ears (eyes I guess this being a forum). I'm having to drench the point in shallow statements and still you completely miss it, glad you're not my architect. To be clear, tyhe complaint was Hirst and presenter so CHANNEL4 - AUDIENCE AGES ABOUT 20-50 MEDIUM INTEREST IN ART AND CULTURE BUT NOT TOO FUSSED ABOUT THE DEEPER DETAIL AND NEED TO BE ENTERTAINED IN A LIGHT HEARTED FASHION. PROMOTE HIRST IN A LIGHT WAY, USE NOEL FIELDING, PEOPLE GET AN INSIGHT FROM THE ARTIST, NOT TOO DEEP = PRIME TIME 4 VIEWING That's all I'm trying to say, it was decent programming for that audience, of which clearly neither architect or the other guy are, so why go trolling about it all, just give it a rest, a simple 'this programme was not for me because I don't really rate Hirst as an artist' would have sufficed, instead of supposition and over inflated opinions on an artist based on your owbn perceptions of what art is. You are absolutely right. '' This programme was not for me, because i dont really rate Hirst FULL STOP''. but my own opinion on art is not an opinion base on a limited subjectivity, but on an objective knowledge of what distinguishes art from wall decoration, Nor do I go troll, As for the architect bit, That's about God not buildings or building buildings. Thank you |
|
