In an accidental fit of culture, Ali and I ventured to the National Theatre this afternoon to watch "Theatre of Blood" - a hilarious staging of the old Hammer House of Horror film which starred Vincent Price. The stage version starred Jim Broadbent and is an account of a hammy old actor who tricks seven newspaper critics who had savaged his performances in the past to an old theatre and then slaughters them all in the style of murders from Shakespeare plays (sorry if you were planning to go an see it, I may have given away some plot points). Plenty of blood and guts and all together excellent value for a tenner each.
However, since we were on the South Bank and in a cultured frame of mind we decided to venture down the Thames to the Tate Modern. I love art and Ali's sister is a fine artist so I have good reason to make the effort to appreciate art. We even have pictures up in the house that don't involve a female tennis player scratching her arse. I also like the idea that artists try to challenge the nature of what art is and what it means to the viewer, but please, don't put the results in an art gallery! Keep those thoughts in the A'level philosophy essay where they belong.
Seem a bit harsh? Well today we got to see 3 basket balls suspended in a fish tank. At least when Damian Hirst suspended a shark in formaldehyde it was original. But it's been done now. Move on. Ridiculous and plagiarism. Then there was the pile of bricks which apparently was the "artist" questioning what represents artistic materials. No, it was a twat wasting my time. Possibly the most pathetic display was a small glass of water suspended 7 feet up on the wall. The accompanying sign explained that the glass of water was in fact an oak tree and that the "artist" was challenging our perception of objects. If I were ever to meet the "artist" I might offer to challenge his perception of pain via a well deserved knee in what he perceives to be his bollocks. Idiot.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Ports, couldn't agree more. I have written on the subject myself here - http://www.dadams.co.uk/archive3.htm#item3 - and here - http://www.dadams.co.uk/archive11.htm#item5.
In a nutshell, if this stuff counts as art, then everyone who wipes their arse on toilet paper and makes a brown pattern is an artist. Sorry to be crude, but that's the way I see it and I'm sure many will agree.
And just this evening I commented on Ed Brill's blog about the fact that a Notes / Domino 7 launch event is being held at the Tate Britain rather than the Tate Modern. The joke is actually inaccurate as they display pretentious rubbish at both. Anyway, the quote was "They were gonna hold it at the Tate Modern, but last time someone threw some chocolate wrappers and a half-empty cup of coffee into a rubbish bin only to be informed it was one of the exhibits (sound of muffled laughter)". Not a particularly original gag, but there you go.
No argument from me either. Much of what we're told is 'art' is nothing of the sort. If we take the definition used by many so called modern artists then anything is art because 'They say it is'.
In that case anything is art so of equal value artistically. Bollocks!
The fact that these people CREATE such animated discourse justifies the work as art. Open your eyes.
Post a Comment