posted by schemer at 3:49 PM
Monday, April 11, 2005
ABOUT SCHEMES AND GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION
Previous Posts
Your writing here. Submit: projectschemes@hotmail.co.uk
ABOUT SCHEMES AND GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION
Previous Posts
11 Comments:
Other than 'Helmeted Homunculus at the Ethergut Cafe' and 'floating guts in hat' the other pieces seemed overtly sexual and crude in composition. This stuff reminded me of high-school art classes and not proffessional pieces you would see in a gallery. (Don't give up the day job). Sorry I don't mean to be rude, some of the work (listed above) is worth showing others, however, is the rest really up to scratch? I would be interested if anyone agrees/disagrees...?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oi, Hieronymous Bosch, Matthias Grunewald, Max Ernst, Jean Dubuffet, Salvador Dali, Man Ray, Pietr Bruegel, Tracy Emin, Jake and Dinos Chapman! Noooo! While I appreciate that your work has, across a period of centuries, challenged all kinds of sexual taboos, compositional rules and issues of subject matter your work is "overtly sexual and crude", not like the "proffessional (sic) pieces you would see in a gallery".
Richard, can I refer you back to your poem "With Butterknife...etc", particularly the line "and she played the fellatio".
Also, go and find a book on the Hans Prinzhorn collection and you'll understand the real meaning of "overtly sexual and crude".
Jx
Hey Joe thanks for the 'big up'.
Also thanks to Richard, luckily for him I don't show anyone my really 'overtly sexual and crude' pieces, the ones on view are the 'family friendly' versions. They are not meant to be professional or proffessional pieces, I would never put them in a gallery, sell them or charge the hapless public to see them, so I'm sending you a refund of the £0.00 it cost you to access them. They aren't crude in composition, they're all exactly the same composition--inspired by Judy Chicago or is it Maude Lebowski?
Hey I was giving my personal opinion, I'm not an art critic, i'm a pretty average student. Sorry i rocked your boats. I enjoy good quality artwork but this just didn't seem up to my standards. I am aware of other artists and their approaches to sex and I don't like this approach (because as I mentioned previously they seem immature and of poor composition). I gave my opinion and you guys are trying to belittle it by implying this is 'good quality' art or that my critical vocabularly is weak (which is likely because I am just an ordinary guy). Well if you didn't want my criticism then take off the comments section! Or perhaps just have a flashing sign requesting solicited criticism. I think more people would write their opinions on this site (no matter how amateur) if you would stop being so condescending. Give a little breathing space for us idiots - cheers
"don't give up the day job"
That's what I call condescension.
By your logic, more people would provide material for this site if you'd stop being so condescending. Where's the cut-off point? I don't come here to pick fights and, more importantly, don't claim to have the final say on what is "good". Everyone is free to make comments but to do so is to enter the public domain. If you're not willing to have your views scrutinized then you really shouldn't be expounding them.
However, since your views are opening up interesting debates about a number of things (the question raised in this case is one whether critics have a responsibility to show a modicum of restraint) you should keep posting. As far as I'm concerned, none of this is a personal matter but I think we should firmly establish that "comments" are texts for criticism as well as the initially submitted pieces.
Sorry for any offence caused,
Jx
In my most humble opinion: i agree, apologies for sounding like I have a personal opinion about something. Maybe I should stay away from criticising someone's artwork with such subjectivity? hmmn interesting...
I don't mind people criticising my views, maybe it was too early in the morning for me?! I just felt like you guys both took a huge crap on me. I guess I didn't expect such cutting criticism in reply, maybe I should go back to A-level English classes where evryone gets a medal for contributing their opinion.
Anyway, lets not get off on the wrong foot. I can see how my criticism is poor and will attempt to make ammends - because I would still like to argue that this artwork is not good. As for criticizing my opinions - i really appreciate your comments and will be more careful in wording my criticism's in the future.
Back to the art work: thanks for mentioning that they are not to be considered 'proffessional pieces'. I'm glad someone recognizes they are not in league with 'Max Ernst, Jean Debuffet and Salvidor Dali'...Only kidding.
I wasn't calling your criticism "poor". As you imply, it's a matter of subjectivity and that isn't appraisable without recourse to another sphere of subjectivity. It's discoure, innit!? People need to keep responding but it's equally important that "criticism" engenders a reply itself. I wasn't intending to shit on anyone- I just wanted to highlight the fact that I found your opinion regarding appropriate subject matters in art anachronistic. You may think otherwise.
Anyway, I think that this is a rosy-cheeked debate. It needs to keep coming.
Jx
I do not think that sexual content in art is even remotely immature or something to be avoided (Some would say avoidance is impossible). In this particular case I felt like I was viewing cheap imitation artwork. The sexual content was (in my opinion) poorly illustrated and the actual composition quality was not great. When I said 'overtly sexual' I meant it was bordering on ridiculous, the phallus and vagina have been treated boldly by artists before but this particular series of paintings did not strike me as valuable to look at.
If it is of any use, here are some of my favourite artists which I feel treat the subject matter with greater skill and imagination (excuse the spelling):
Milo Manara
Georgia O'Keefe
Balthus
Dali
Delvaux
Gustav Klimt
Maybe this list makes me old fashioned, let me know your thoughts...
I realise that the sexual images alluded to are not necessarily the artist's only ideas when painting the pictures. This particular aspect of the pictures was most arresting and so that is where my criticism lies at present.
I also understand that the pictures were free to view (thanks for the refund anyway - nice gesture). From what I have seen of Judy Chicago's works I would say they are not alike. Yes you may have been inspired by them, but the composition is nowhere near the same. She has delivered a similiar content as yours but with greater effectiveness. There is an obvious difference in the artists skill in composition. If I am 'wrong' please tell me why you believe your work to be of that standard. Just so you know i have only seen her work online (google) so I can only give you my opinion regarding her pictures there. Thanks
Relax and enjoy
Casino
viagra
tramadol
cialis
Latest news. Viagra, cialis
viagra
cialis
tramadol
Post a Comment
<< Home