QOTW

Kate,

You have an " at the end of you 2nd link.

A better QOTW might be how long before the Liberal party of Canada throws the remains of Jean Pelletier under the bus in order for Chretien's government and adherents to absolve themselves of the Adscam fiasco?

If federal arts funding is cut, so much talent will be wasted. Actually, society as a whole will suffer - such a move amounts to cultural suicide. It's unthinkable.

Just because you can't comprehend and appreciate something more complex than a drawing of Homer Simpson, that in no way diminishes the work's artistic merit or cultural value.

Izanpo has missed the whole point: when a drawing of Homer Simpson (no problem with the drawing, per se) is considered "art", "Houston, we have a problem"—which Dalrymple has, in his inimitable style and with his usual chutzpah, brilliantly exposed.

Psst . . . Izanpo (who appears to perfectly fill the bill of the ignoramuses Dalrymple exposes), why not read the article? You should be able to understand it—Dalrymple writes impeccable English prose—or maybe not.

alot of people realized = the lord high messiah hisself, has discovered what he signed on for. man-o-man are we in it deep

Well. Now we know who and what Izanpo is!!!
Screw you asshat artists.If your work can't make it on its own,that right there shows how much "merit" and "cultural" value it actually has.Zip,zilch,nada,none. Got that??

Please explain why it is necessary for me to pay taxes in order that some third-rate hack in his studio can continue churn out unsaleable crap? Why can't he get a job? Is my life made any richer for the dreck he produces in the moments when he tears his lips off the public teat long enough to breathe? You assert that since I can't comprehend and appreciate the complexity of the inner vision of reality surging through his brain and spilling out onto the canvas in such a foaming gush of genuis - but you can - I have to accept your artistic evaluation, and slave so that my self-proclaimed intellectual betters and some unknowable posterity will thank me for it later. Or do you think because your sense of life will be validated by the intellectual heirs of some sordid little tosser who canned his own excrement - even if mine won't - I should pay for that? Why?
What, beyond your say-so, or that of some prejudiced state-funded academic all too eager to be the authority from which you argue for more swill at the public trough, is the logical, rational reason for me to pay for any art I have not evaluated on its own merits?

I have an interest in the arts and my why is involved in the arts, and there is nothing we hate more than "grant whores". I think most artists create for the joy of doing it. If they can create something that someone else will pay money for, so much the better. No one, however, should be forced to in effect subsidize someone elses hobby. If you can't make a living at it that's what your art amounts to.

The history of art in a nutshell:

1. Art is seen as the pursuit of beauty. Beauty is considered a good thing, worth pursuing.

2. Art, being a luxury, becomes the privilege of the aristocracy.

3. Like waiters, who spend so much time with well-heeled gourmands that they fancy themselves one as well, artists fancy themselves as adjunct members of the aristocracy, possessing the same superior breeding and education.

4. Along comes industrialisation, and now even bourgeois folks can afford art. This upsets the fantasy of the artist. Pretending to be an aristocrat is fine, but a bourgeois? Unacceptable!

5. Artists try to regain their favoured place by repelling the bourgeois; art is redefined from being about beauty to being about shocking and repelling the bourgeois. From this point on, art is made deliberately ugly. When a bourgeois buys it, the artist snickers up his sleeve.

You could read a multi-volume history of art to get all the details but this is the "executive take-away."

Izanpo: Did you know that I have a hobby too. The only thing is, I don't expect the government to pay me to do it full time.

There are times when I think some of it is really soul baring and truly cutting edge stuff! During those episodes I'm sure that if I don't produce it society will just wither up and blow away.

Then I get over myself and go to work on Monday morning.

I've met a few musicians who make 'crazy' sounds, and who can play complex "neener-neener" guitar solos based on years of having practiced particular modes and scales, and who in some cases attained a measure of success by certain standards. What always amazed me was that, in a pinch, they couldn't play -- literally *couldn't play* -- Old MacDonald or "Oh Donna" unless they had the chords written out in front of them. It kind of put the lie to their "art," in the sense you can't genuinely compose something if you can't play what you hear in your head. Similarly, in the case of visual art, if someone can't draw a face or an edifice representationally, in proper proportion, there's no way you could possibly be in control of the form of your abstract paintings or drawings.

That being said, one shouldn't be opposed to innovation simply because it's not traditional representational art. A lot of people might say that Picasso, for example, is ridiculous, and that his work is just a jumble of lines, and they toss him in the mix with the technically incompetent simply because he didn't paint representationally. I saw a painting done by Picasso -- there was a throne of some sort, and a sovereign of some sort and some subjects -- when he was twelve or thirteen, I think, and I was knocked over and really surprised by his ability to paint straightforward, Rembrandt-like scenes with deadly skill. It's clearly the case that in all the Cubist works that followed he was in full control of every small detail of what he was doing, unlike paint-spillers like Jackson Pollock. No one who gets on a ladder and tosses buckets of paint has final control over the forms he's creating. There is some merit to what he does, though -- there's a definite ineffable tweak to your brain when you see one up on a wall.

Speaking of control of a medium, check out the painting --

http://www.katewerk.com/k9art.html

of the woman holding the dog. Look at the heel of the hand, and the watch, and the hair on the dog's face -- there's a kinesthetic sense to it that somehow transfers to the viewer; the effect, rooted in one small, very human moment, has universal resonance.

That particular work is available in a limited edition print.

ART

he's the neighbour I never had!!!!

Dalrymple's point is so obvious that it really shouldn't have to be made. Modern art has become a parade of nonsense.

Visit the new Tate Gallery in London and you will be treated to a video screen of a naked man dancing in slow motion. The 'art' of the piece is that while the observer listens to classical music the dancer has a headset on so that he listens to dance music.

Get it.

I didn't either. It's sophomoric crap.

But cross town and visit the National Gallery and you will see real representations of beauty, done with incredible technical skill. It moves you.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between arts funding and quality of art. The more money you throw at it the worse it gets.

In a sense, everything that human beings do is original, for even if they want to they cannot exactly copy one another. Like M. Jourdain speaking prose, most of us utter completely original sentences by the dozen every day, effortlessly and not knowing that we are doing it.
Theodore Dalrymple

As Art Bell would say, you've got something there Theodore Dalrymple.

Fortunately, stuff such as that of Jeff Koons has never been a major factor in Canadian art. Probably the one living Canadian artist who might be called "great" is Alex Colville, and his works will not offend even the naive (although they are sometimes shocking, in their sober assessments of the human condition). Newfoundland boasts the most excellent artist Gerry Squires, and the work of the Pratts has much to recommend it. Who needs more?

As for abstract art, or op and pop, they never really caught on. Riopelle's abstract works I like, and Gordon Smith's also. Some of David Milne's magnificent work is far from simple realism; but for the most we Canadians seem to have little affinity for the completely nonrepresentational. Indeed, Lawren Harris's work shows this very well: he really tried to turn himself into a nonrepresentational artist, and failed totally to do so.

The war artists programs were of considerable assistance to painters such as Milne and Colville. But do we need Canada Council? Hell no.

A new war artists program might do very well: send the funded artists to Afghanistan. Having to dodge IEDs would sharpen their senses like nothing else!

My understanding of art is represented quite well by Rockwell. Some might think his work too American, but to me it evokes feelings of warmth...you know makes me feel good about life instead of shocking me with something outrageously bad.
Too bad he isn't with us anymore, the man was a true artistic genious.
But I digress, the point is that those that have some mistaken belief culture is defined by a government subsidized program means they don't understand what culture or art is.

fire

them

all

Lauren Harris is (was), in my opinion the greatest Canadian artist.

The most salient quote in the entire article is rather:

Tradition is the precondition of progress, not its antithesis or enemy.

and from the Helprin article:

...part of what we call art is the tempering of ideas and notions by the facts of our existence and the existence of our limitations.

Art is a creation of human spirit. It is aligned with a higher principle.
A photograph will represent reality as it is.
A painting will represent reality as one sees fit.
Some are painting that are equivalent to a photograph, perhaps more detailed than a camera can do, unless of course by Adams.
There are many young painters that are very good at what they do. Today though, you really have to do something outrageous to catch an interest of a critic.
Art is not a fad, it is not a fashion. Art has an everlasting intrinsic value.
The happening art is more of a show, of an interest mostly of the in crowd. Lasts only as far as the booze flows and dope lasts.
Although The Fence of Christos was an interesting construct, it is not to be seen again, only in photographs and short film.
On the other hand the statuary and magnificent buildings of Phidias of Greece, the Roman forum and even earlier art of Egypt and Mesopotamia can be observed. They had a sense of history and perspective on the future, as Pericles said in his funeral speech, ‘future generations will look with wander at our times.’
There are those today that do art because they must. Most are doing it for the grant.
Those that do art because they must are more likely to look after themselves, do not complain about lack of funding are likely more successful then those that are doing it to get another grant.

I agree with you about Lawren Harris, minuteman.

When I saw "If federal arts funding is cut, so much talent will be wasted. Actually, society as a whole will suffer - such a move amounts to cultural suicide. It's unthinkable." my first thought was why are there no quote marks? Then I read the second line and realized that the first line was serious and not meant as sarcasm and that the second line wasn't a punch line.

Pity

one of wolfe's friends....(wolfe...the painted word wolfe for all you filisteens)anyway ...scully(wolfe's art collector friend)said after an orgy of 60's trendy art buying/investing/ collecting...said.."nowadays i can't seem to actually SEE a work of art without an accompanying theory or philosophy....)

which of course was all shite of the purest burnt umber brown...

but thank you all for indulging me....

we're doomed...DOOMED!

Forget the Art Gallery of Ontario, full of modernistic junk like Moore's stuff supported by the snobbish art matrons of Toronto. The McMichael Collection in Kleinburg is a great site for the Group of Seven and showings by real artists like Robert Bateman. I have a copy of "Flying High" hanging in my living room and his capture of an eagle soaring in beautiful clouds still lifts me after all these years.

Peter Worthington, who hates modern crap, reprinted a letter from Picasso where he claims the rich seemed to like his crazy drawings and will spend lots of money for them so he does them though to him they are just junk.

Wandering the Louvre I spent hours looking at huge paintings of life in earlier times when photographs didn't exist so paintings were the method of capturing history.

The world is filled with incredible sculptures, paintings and every type of really skilled artisans from Egyptian tombs to Michelangelo's Pieta, which to me was unbelievable that any person could create something so lifelike out of marble, just stunning to see.

Why someone with more money than brains would pay for crap from Pollock or any of his ilk is just beyond my comprehension.

"Hacker: People can spend their own money. Why should
government money be spent on pleasure?

Humphrey: Nobody could call it pleasure. The point is,
we have a great heritage to support
Pictures no one wants to see, music no one
wants to hear, plays no one wants to watch.
You can't let them die
just because nobody's interested.

Hacker: Why not?

Humphrey: Well, it's a bit like the Church of England. People don't go to church,
but they feel better because it's there."

Marveling at the virtues of tradition, I repeat that everything which does not proceed from this tradition is plagiarism.

--Salvador Dali

You know its funny. People who pursue art in the context of cars/motorcycles and to a lesser extent furniture have more work than they can handle. If they're any good, at least. Hackers and beginners still have to build up their skills, gain a clientèle, boring stuff like that.

How many hotrod shops, pinstripers, airbrush jockeys and fabricators are begging for Canada Council grants? I'm thinking none, myself.

Is it still art if you can drive it, Izanpo? Or sit on it? Or eat breakfast off it? Is a painting still art if its on the hood of my truck, or does it have to be on canvas, hanging in some frightfully avant garde gallery in Toronto? Is art still art if you see it in Hamilton?

Make what you can SELL, don't steal out of my wallet and whine it isn't enough.

As a corollary to "real" or "actual" art being, more often than not, a pile of garbage, I went to an art show a month or so ago at the University of Toronto (seeing as my daughter had a few penicl sketches on display).

I have never seen such a dismal display of ineptitude. I had expected a modicum of talent but very little was on display. I was struck by the lack of beauty; it seems that ugliness and slap-dash haphazardness were the order of the day. These "artworks" didn't even feature competent draughtsmanship. The "artwork," for the most part, was clumsy and inelegant.

In fact, gracelessness abounded as my husband, daughter, and I picked our way through display after display of paintings, sketches, sculptures, and installations on FOUR floors of an old building on campus.

I was totally discouraged, deflated, and DEPRESSED. At one of Canada's biggest and, supposedly, best universities, the "artwork" was appallingly repulsive, incompetent, and unskillful. An art show by kindergarten students would have been more pleasing.

And THEN there was a trip to the new AGO a few weeks ago.

Actually, the Ken Thomson collection was quite good, especially because it seems to focus on his collection of religious (read: Christian) artifacts. My husband and I enjoyed the collection and its elegant presentation. In one gallery, there was actually a life-sized crucified Christ hanging from a cross: very well-done and, I have to say, I was somewhat surprised by its prominent display.

ON THE OTHER HAND, walking to the gallery's restaurant, we went by a nameless -- and presumably artistless -- "installation" composed of shards of glass, in a few places skewering hairy, dead, bloody "animals" of indeterminant description, interspersed with fake fir trees on whose branches perched birds and other feather-like creatures not known to man, with a few "bird-men" (life-sized suited "men" with birds' heads) strutting their stuff while observing the scene. 'Talk about "dehumanizing art." I suspect PETA would appreciate the "message," which seemed to have something to do with cruelty to animals.

I searched for the name of the installation and artist to no avail, and eventually had to ask at the front desk. They didn't know. They sent someone off to find out and told me the artist was David Oldsman, but couldn't tell me the name of the piece (of sh**).

I Googled "David Oldsman" and there was no artist by that name displaying their work at the AGO or anywhere else.

I am going to get in on this discussion because it is so dear to my heart. A few years back I had the honour of visiting the National Art Center (Ottawa). Their I witnessed a smashed Baby Grand Piano set before mirrors - I suppose this was modern art. Now being a pianist with 10 years of study under my belt and never owning a home large enough to support a baby grand, I was horrified. I wanted to puke. This did not reach the recesses of my soul.

On a more lighter note and they also had on display many, many doors of shapes and colours in differing arrangements and this is called art. Not only does my tax dollars go toward supporting these illuminaries, but that damn museum is also paid by me.

Here in my area they have moved from impressionism to art that my cats could do.

Sorry for the spelling mistakes and added words but my fingers move faster than my brain these days.

dolly: Smashed pianos ... mirrors ... Hmmm ... 'sounds like "my" artless artist at the AGO ... wonder if it's the same guy?

I'm not against modern art ... it just has to speak to me. There has to be some compelling artistry/craftsmanship/theme/beauty, not just a hodge-podge dog's breakfast.

And then, as you point out, dolly, NOT on my looney/tuney. Let these imposters pay for their (f)artwork themselves.

Would you trust any salesman named Madoff (made-off) ?

I love (some) art. I go to symphonies. I play the piano. Some day I want to try my hand at painting and metal sculpturing and furniture making, all great hobbies. But Harper's art cuts please me for a few reasons:
- Public funds are not discriminating, as art patronage should be in my opinion. Go find a donor or clients who want your stuff, don't use public funds.
- Pisses off lefty types. (Kidding.)

Izanpo: If federal arts funding is cut, so much talent will be wasted. Actually, society as a whole will suffer - such a move amounts to cultural suicide. It's unthinkable.

Society and culture is already suffering due to the acceptance of gimmicky dog's-breakfast (as batb says) art.

I have little doubt that not a few modern artists are laughing at the gullibility of their sophisticated art champions. A cynical friend of a friend, decades ago, entered and finished at an art competition using crap on the same level as splashed paint (it was something else though, don't remember the details). The thought has certainly crossed my mind to see what kind of junk I can swindle someone into thinking is transgressive, bare-souled, avant-garde, whatever. Suckers.