PDA

View Full Version : One in the eye for the Art luvvies


tony draper
19th Apr 2004, 19:06
I see Jack Vettriano's works The Singing Butler looks like its going to bring a good price,hee hee, this must really piss off the mincing twittering fops of the Art establishment,(which is always a good thing) one supercilious ring piece has just been on the news already saying even though it was very popular and loved by millions it was not art, I suppose half a sheep in formaldyhide or a glass case containing horse droppings is.
**** em! bloody luvvie tossers.

:rolleyes:

PS Mr Vettriano paints a very good ladies leg. :E

G-ALAN
19th Apr 2004, 22:05
Good!! As some may already know I have a deep seated hatred for modern art luvvies and nothing pleases me more than to watch them being screwed over :E

flyblue
19th Apr 2004, 22:54
Hey! :* Brother's an artist! :suspect:

Stockpicker
19th Apr 2004, 23:01
Yup, north side of seven hundred grand for a scots daub - I want to know what the bloke who sold it's going to buy next .....:eek:

The Invisible Cat
19th Apr 2004, 23:01
flyblue
Brother's an artist!
hope he is not making a living taking pictures of dead moggies :uhoh: :uhoh:

OneWorld22
19th Apr 2004, 23:05
Yeah somebody like El Greco would p**s all over these "modern" artists!

Seriously, did anyone catch his exhibition in London? Brilliant.

G-ALAN
19th Apr 2004, 23:17
flyblue
It's not traditional artists I have it in for it's the modern artists who stick balloons in the corner of a room or paint a wall black and then spout some drivel concerning what it 'represents'. They then have every culture obsessed, gullible, f*ckhead luvvie [email protected] in the country discussing the beauty, complexity and boldness of their 'work of art' and bidding 50 grand a time for it.

:* :*

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2004, 23:45
I just had a peek at the daub in question (http://www.xkms.org/Brandsmall.com-1/The-Singing-Butler-by-Jack-Vettriano.htm) . I like it - shows a lot of life and atmosphere. The toffs pictured will annoy the "liberal" (actually very rich but pretend we only like poor people) art establishment too :E

airship
19th Apr 2004, 23:54
G-ALAN, how dare you criticise how people spend our money. It gives me great pleasure to know that today's artists don't have to wait until they die to obtain some benefit from their works. It makes me so sad to think that they may have gone through life penniless and destitute otherwise. :}

Rhodie
20th Apr 2004, 00:04
Iv'e got a lurvely picture of my living room wall, just after it was painted in a soft, velvet finish cream colour...

The Labrador jumped up and left muddy prints all over, in a deep, contrasting chocolate brown colour..

Suitable for framing.

Can we start the bids at..........

(the 'original' piece, signed by the artist, will cost a bit more - shipping not included... ;) )

R

:ok:

Ozzy
20th Apr 2004, 00:09
Pollocks!!! Jackson Pollocks to yer all. Grab a tin of emulsion and just whak it all over the fecking place. Call it "interpretive" and Bobs yer uncle, peeps are fallin over themselves to gush money at yer.:*

Ozzy

The Invisible Cat
20th Apr 2004, 00:13
here is some real animal art (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/splash.php)
Not some stupid dribbling tailwagger's muddy prints :yuk:

airship
20th Apr 2004, 00:18
I bid 35! ;)

(take it or leave it!)

The Invisible Cat
20th Apr 2004, 00:37
One is wondering how many times Mr airship will have to edit this post in the coming days
:rolleyes:

BTW My Aunt Mary is very close to something. Shhhh

DishMan
20th Apr 2004, 09:15
Many years back in the UK there was a programme called "That's Life".....they did sartirical things on daily life etc.

Remember one episode when they took a bunch of nobodies to a scrap yard.
Gave them various pots of paint and some white canvases and 20 minutes to create art....

One guys found an old bike and rolled tyre tread marks on his...someone else splohed daubs of red.......

Then they rented a small Mayfair display room and got an actor to play the part of Artist.
His debut in the Art world saw many top critics looking around the room, glass of champers in hand and him with his velvet jacket and arty scarf.

Well, only one person as I recall was a bit suspect...not "seeing" anything....one other was all "Oh Daaahhhling - I see you were in a field of strawberries with this...." (the red splodge one!)...blah blah blah....then Esther Rantzen the presenter came out and proved they had been had. Some VERY embaressed laughing from most of the Art luvvy critics.....except the one who "saw through" it...or did they.....

One is confronted here by loads of Mondrian......what the heck is so special about various black rectangles overlapping with some bits colored in????????
Give me a Monet any day!

chuks
20th Apr 2004, 12:22
A German (I think it was) museum was having an exhibition of modern art, when one artist did one of those numbers with a chair, a broom, a pile of trash, etc. Then along came the custodians, who gathered it up and threw it away as a common or garden-variety pile of trash. Not being 'educated' they couldn't tell the difference, I guess. There was quite a fuss from the luvvie quarter over the museum's failure to protect 'art'.

I recently attended a Tracy Emin exhibition. You, Tony Draper, really, but really need to view this lady's work. It may expand your consciousness to cosmic proportions or it may just make you laugh so hard that the guards will rush over, pick you up off the floor and throw you out in the street like the philistine you are. An unmade bed, a tent, a little wooden shack, some scribbles, some piccies... there was more, lots more.... Go and see for yourself.

Actually, there is a lot of modern art that I really do enjoy. Jackson Pollack did some great stuff. And he was deeply into drinking and driving, until he hit that tree. I like to see a man with a commitment to his art.

Ad Reinhardt? Got so deeply into his 'Minimalism' that he topped himself. Now that's being a 'serious artist'! Go view a series of his paintings on a rainy day, preferably just after your girlfriend has thrown your sorry *rse out in the street bag and baggage, leaving you sleeping in the back of your Sierra, and find out that what you thought was depression was actually Julie Andrews in 'The Sound of Music'!

a is dum
20th Apr 2004, 12:34
Chuks,

Best art review I have read for a long time!:ok:

herewith a link: art!!!!?????? (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/arthist/sharp/issues/0002/pHTML/pTraceyEminMyBed01.shtml)

please see the footnote at page 11: "The mattress in London was not the same as that in New York." :ooh:

Binoculars
20th Apr 2004, 12:34
If I called the major contributors to this forum fascists as often as they call anyone who's not a scientist a luvvie I would be howled out of the forum and rightly so.

It's precisely the same sort of unthinking and meaningless generalisation. Give it a rest, people, fer chrissakes, it's getting fecking boring. Think of another word to express your distaste for anybody who disagrees with your own limited views.

:yuk:

tony draper
20th Apr 2004, 12:41
I agree with that old chap who used to be on the tonight program,modern art should be renamed,"Fart".

Stockpicker
20th Apr 2004, 13:57
Must say I used to have a dim view of modern art till I went to one of the 3 big galleries in Madrid where they had an exhibition what was truly brill - a massive Newton's cradle made of glass balls containing chlorine gas, a "field of corn" made of individual plastic white/yellow stalks , a bird's cage with no base, just side wires that went on all the way to the floor .... OK, you kind of had to be there, but it did make me think that some of this stuff is actually really great to look at.

(The Emin bed has to be a joke, tho')

G-ALAN
20th Apr 2004, 14:01
Don't get me wrong, some of it is fun to look at if slightly strange (which is probably what makes it fun) but it's the drivel and the con artists who come with it that annoy me :ugh:

Ozzy
20th Apr 2004, 14:20
Binos check this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/1/newsid_2489000/2489433.stm) out! It's 4 years old but I believe "luvvie" is used in its correct vernacular there.:E

Ozzy

chuks
20th Apr 2004, 15:44
Ouch! Watch where you are swinging that handbag, you brute, you! Wasn't it you denouncing someone as 'pathetic' just the other week? What's the matter? Cat get sick again on the Persian?

Actually, when I use the term 'luvvie' I like to think I know what I am talking about. One of my siblings put in seven (7) years at one of the top art schools in New York City. And, as any fule kno, NYC is the absolute navel of the universe when it comes to art, artists, art collectors and just plain folks who like to talk a lot of rot about art and 'art'.

I myself could easily expatiate on the dynamic tension and inner contradictions of what to the naked, untotored eye looks like a dirty piece of cloth. This is because I have sat at the feet of masters of this sort of thing. Of course I did that in my formative years, before I had enough sense to make up my own mind about what is what.

Often enough, when one gets right down to the bottom of many conversations of this sort they are about money or sex. Yes! Either someone is trying to sell what looks like a dirty piece of cloth or else by expatiating thereupon someone will get to have sex with someone else he, she, or he/she is squiring around an art museum.

So when someone cuts loose with such a rude and funny opinion about art, such as the one that led off here, well, it just sets off a howling chorus. It is somewhat akin to a loud fart in church, or don't you laugh at that sort of thing? That isn't boring to me; I think it's funny!

I want to see poseurs like Tracy E. get a damned good kicking, frankly. She should make way for some real artists, people who can draw, paint, carve, sculpt... not just get big bucks for a 'concept'.

One comes up with a concept of one's own: it's Rambo, with a flame-thrower, stalking through a Tracy Emin installation shouting 'Conceive this, b*tch!' and then pulling the trigger. I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like!

Binoculars
20th Apr 2004, 15:48
Ozzy, I checked out the link. Where was "luvvie" used except in the headline? The fact that it was a BBC article should indicate it was hardly a red-top tabloid invention. The fact that it was four years old makes my point. It's a phrase that has passed its use-by date.

It is just another term whose use serves to preclude rational discussion: see also;

Fascist! Nazi! Communist! Pinko! Liberal! Racist! Sexist!

Ozzy
20th Apr 2004, 15:55
Binos, yep just used in the headline and, as you point out, it was the luvvie BBC using the term itself:E

In that list you forgot Marxist! Terrorist! Artist! Ageist! Tory! Whig! etc etc...see, starting lists to proscribe ones speech is a bad thing.:sad: :ugh:

Ozzy

tony draper
20th Apr 2004, 15:58
Actually dunno if one has mentioned this before but it is Drapes who is reponsible for the term luvvie being used to describe anyone who does not share ones slightly facist philosophy.
The term Luvvie was originaly used to describe thesps and showbiz peeps ,you know the type, always hugging each other, calling each other darling and weeping copiously at award ceremonies, and thats just the male thesps.
Anyway one thunk it far to good a term of abuse to be restricted to those creatures, so about six years ago one commensed to use it on a couple of other websites to describe tree huggers, greens, liberals and the like, these websites were mostly frequented by Americans and the use of word has spread like wildfire there, and one is quite chuffed to see it has passed into common web parlance.

:rolleyes:

Binoculars
20th Apr 2004, 15:59
Err, pardon???? Whose side are you on here, Ozzy?

Ozzy
20th Apr 2004, 16:16
I can never figure that one out Binos, I guess I'm on my side:uhoh:

Ozzy

chuks
20th Apr 2004, 20:27
Dear Mr Draper,

I don't know if 'luvvie' is in use in the USA, since I don't spend much time there anymore

We used to find it pretty difficult to separate the various members of the artsy-fartsy crowd. (I think that's why they use those little sheets of plastic in the Velveeta packs, actually...) Pretty much any actor could give you a riff on the artists of the day and v.v.

How well I remember a few hours of balls-aching tedium spent in a theatrical bar in lower Manhattan in the company of an ageing drama queen, his young consort, my fag-hag pal and her young school-teacher friend. The things one had to endure just to have sex with a school-teacher! The conversation about the arts was wide-ranging and predictable. And bitchy! They aren't called 'queens' for nothing!

I spent enough time on the fringes of the scene to be able to talk the talk but that was enough for me. For every genuine artist there seemed to be about 100 poseurs. Of whom one seems, to me anyway, to be Miss Emin. Let's wait ten years and see how much of her stuff is still being actively viewed.

(It is an odd thing, but whatever happened to that guy who used to paint portraits on broken plates? His art was everywhere and now?)

The funniest part about your post is the thought of all these nasty, jealous, cutting-edge artists and their hangers-on having to see someone deeply unfashionable, who can actually paint, enjoy some success. There will have been tears on a few pillows over this, I can guarantee.

So, perhaps you really did propagate the wider use of the term but it's very logical to call them all 'luvvies'. Mwah!

As to being a 'fascist', well... Most real, historical fascists were very serious about art. It was no joking matter to them. I will have to give you a 'must try harder' on that, no matter what that grouchy guy says.

Regards,

chuks

tony draper
20th Apr 2004, 20:38
Indeed Mr Chucks old Adolf was no slouch with a paint brush either,although one has read he could not do figures, either human or animals,which is a pity really,had he been able to do so,he might have got into that art colledge and history might be different.
One is actually not adverse to a wander round ones local art galleryoneself one likes proper painting, landscapes, castles on bleak hillsides, portraits of folks with the eyes on either side of the nose as nature intended and such.

:rolleyes:

Capt.KAOS
20th Apr 2004, 20:55
luvvie n.
A luvvie is a rather overexuberant (and almost invariably gay) thespian. Referring to actors as luvvies or luvvie darlings is rather scornful and demeaning - it's true, though, that a few of the older, camper actors do indeed refer to each other as "luvvie".

In case of Mr.Draper its obviously used in the form of `Im strong, theyre pussies. I drive a Harley, they drive a Vespa`

Oberhausen has become an interesting open air museum of Industrial Art the last 10 years, Mr.Chucks.

digidave
20th Apr 2004, 21:10
I guess bringing Salvador Dali (http://www.dali-gallery.com/) into this debate would be a bad idea then Mr. Drapes? Dali was never one to be constrained by having to put eyes either side of the nose but he did produce some amazing images (IMHO).

a is dum, seems a shame that Plate 2: My :mad: is Wet with Fear, Japan, 1998, reproduced courtesy of White Cube. is not available to view.

Ah well, back to dear old Rubens :ok:
dd

AntiCrash
21st Apr 2004, 01:49
Now Hitler there was a Painter! An entire apartment in one afternoon. Two Coats!!!;)

Lon More
21st Apr 2004, 06:01
In the Netherlands a percentage of the cost of any public building has to be devoted to an artistic work to be displayed therein.When the terminal building and tower at EHBK were constructed a number of aluminium pipes painted green, red, blue and yellow were hung from the ceiling to represent airways.
The day before the official opening a length of aluminium ducting was slipped through the middle.
Nobody, including the artist seemed to notice and it hung there for several weeks before being rumbled

chuks
21st Apr 2004, 07:43
There is a rumour going around, one I just started, that a certain Pablo P. drew inspiration from the appearance of some of his goatherd cousins who had been caught out by family paddling in a too-shallow gene pool, perhaps, when doing some of his 'both eyes on the same side of the nose' portraits. That is probably a base, fascistic canard, the sort of thing that serious artists have had to contend with down through the ages.

One gazes upon the clean, tensed flank of a young boy as painted by Caravaggio to think 'What a great artist but what a raging poof!' Then a red light starts flashing, a siren sounds and a team of gender-reassigned custodians descends upon one and drags one off for reprogramming. Now that's fascism! Coming to a gallery near you and sooner than you think.

It may be just that I am nursing a grudge for having been tossed out of the hippy movement for disrespecting the rules, man. I spent a year among my now enemies, trying very hard to hold at least two contradictory ideas in my head at one time. I found I could do that, but only by consuming alarming quantities of industrial-strength drugs. One I got straight again I was right back to mocking the nonsensical aspects of the arts scene until I got the final heave-ho.

I finally decided to go straight with a vengeance, spending my remaining government ducats on a pilot's license to go off to play with airplanes. They tend to respond to concrete facts rather than concepts, interpretations and impressions. It hurts much worse if you get it wrong than getting Ad Reinhardt mixed up with Cy Twombley, say, but it is just so much easier to keep straight.

I still sneak into the odd art gallery, opera house and whatnot, hence my guilty first-hand knowledge of Ms. Emin and her dirty bed-linen. Until they perfect the Prejudometer or else one of the guards recognises me from my postings here, I can get away with thinking whatever I like about what I am seeing, rather than thinking what some 'luvvie' wants me to think.