A Different Direction

And this year's winner of the turner prize is:

It may be abstract, but sometimes that's fine. Especially when it's as painstakingly intricate and beautiful as this. The artist, Richard Wright explains his work to the Guardian here. It's an interesting read. Have a look if you have a moment or three.

Instead of just an idea which could be executed by anyone, here is an artwork which shows years of practise and workmanship. And in a couple of weeks it's going to be painted over. 

No evaluations drawn here. Make of it what you will. I hope this marks a new direction for post-postmodernistic art though.

See, I'm not always grumpy! Uncharacteristically short post over.

Lovesick for Semantics?

Okey doke. I've spent about three days trying to write this now and I keep getting distracted - but I will not be deterred!

The subject of my post today: Are we falling in love with new and innovative artwork crossing our paths? Or are we wrapping ourselves up in the explanation written to the left of the work displayed in the gallery. Y'know - the one written by somebody completely anonymous and employed to make anything look and sound brilliant.

Excuse my cynicism, it's been a long week :p

I touched on this subject more recently in my deviantART journal --->here <--- where I've simply taken a look at a piece of work I came across in the saatchi gallery about a week ago. What I'm getting at is this. Does anybody else feel like there's a monumental amount of mediocre work out there on display? I'm certainly NOT trying to shoot anybody down. I'd be the first to say my work is far below that of anything amazing, but at the same time - I'm not sure everything that's put up in some famous gallery or another is that brilliant either. It's in my opinion that artwork on display should take your breath away. A combination of beauty and function to fire cynlindars in our eyes and minds to really make us think about what it is the artist is trying to say. In the very same Saatchi gallery, I came across a couple of installations that consisded of a single block of grey resin. Half a wooden picture frame. A piece of underlay for wood flooring. Some plastic with some tape on it. Granted, these were works displayed on the theme 'Abstract America' - but this is taking the piss a bit, right? To view these crimes against our intelligence more than art in general, follow this link --->here<---

And then once you're done laughing your head off at how work like that managed to make it into a gallery such as the Saatchi, read all of the accompanying write ups beneath each piece. Take note of the flowery language and imagery used to beef up what is essentially nothing.

Yes, there is an inordinate amount of skill here. No, unfortunately, it is not down to the artist who produced the work.

I can't emphasise how much this gets on my wick. Art should have the ability to give you everything you would read in an essay, without the essay itself. I myself am studying A-level fineart and finding it increasingly difficult to annotate my work, knowing full well that I'm stating the obvious majorly. The pictures and the work don't need the words as well, unless it's a part of the composition as a whole.

Either that, or I'm so dim and narrow minded that I simply cannot seem to see into the realms of what these writers can to then add their explanations to the work. I feel that if the artist had the bare faced cheek to call this 'art' and the gallery organisers felt it was simply that good for display... they shouldn't need anything else. No additions. No parenthesis - just the supposed artwork in itself.

Why are the explanations there? Because everyone knows that in reality, those empty works would simply remain empty and even more pointless than before.

Until next we speak (and hopefully I'll be in a somewhat more chipper mood),
Xan
x

Let's get started...

I have just been involuntarily introduced by Laura I believe! My real name, as already mentioned, is Graham. Likewise with L, my name across various boards/sites is 'vahrael'/'vahron', and feel free to say hi. I don't pretend to be an expert, but it's still nice to rant and prompt discussion. I tend to be interested, somewhat unhealthily, in the philisophical side of the 'art debate'. Examples are always good though...
So...without further ado, I'm going to drag our very first artist into the spotlight...

 Chicken Knickers 1997

Sarah Lucas is a member of the Young British Artists, and probably quite an obvious choice to start with. Her work tends to play upon common sexual innuendos, and look to shock her audience.

And yes, she placed a chicken in front of some knickers.
And yes, apparently this is art.
And yes, I do get it.

The redefinition of art into our postmodern 'anything goes' is usually attributed, at least in part to Duchamp and his work 'Fountain'. It was new and shocking at the time, but I wonder whether the prolonged attempts to mimic this have left the public desensitised to the point where they are no longer phased by even the more extreme works. What happened to leaving the viewer in awe at the beauty of a masterful piece of art?

There is hope that the tides are changing. This years Turner Prize winner. More on that when I'm more awake.

Grumpiness over for now :)
G.

And now it's time for this...

Well, it's officially morning by my clock. About twenty to one in the a.m. and I'm sat here writing out epics about various nerdy art bits and bobs. But hey! - That's what we're here to read, write and discuss about - right? I guess I should pick a more sensible time to get comfy in front of the computer screen, but I think better at this time of day anyhow.

So then, I shall start with an introduction and proceed as I mean to go on.

I'm Laura, a.k.a. Xani. I've various alias' and pseudonyms on a mish mash of social internet sites, but all of them seem to revolve around the name 'Xandu' or 'Xandu-San'. If you come across someone you think is me, drop me a message! Ok, so you've got a 50% chance it's actually a total stranger, but that's all part of the fun. I'd be happy to chat to you, share thoughts and feelings and generally find some more art geeks out there who love going into detail about this stuff as much as I do.

Graham (Vahrael) and I decided to start up this blog so we could actually write down the general gist of what our social (ha!) conversations revolve around. Some of it you might agree on, some of it you might think is a complete waste of cyberspace, but that's the aim of the game. We're really interested in exploring all different aspects of what might be considered art and what might be considered food for the bin - and your opinion counts too. Also keep your eyes peeled, as I know Graham's on the recruitment path for more stooges who want to contribute to the blog as well. There should be a good veriety of content on here to keep your brains mulching nicely, along with conflicts, controversy and muchos coffee consumption.

Anyhow, until the next tirade of (potentially) profound wordage decides to glomp my brain into blog writing submission,
Peace x
- Xani.

Welcome to YGA

Hello and welcome to Young Grumpy Artists!
This site is a place to rant from time to time about the state of contemporary art and try to find a remedy or two along the way.

Somewhat obvious examples, such as this are what annoy us. It's not that we don't get it and any 'deep' meanings it may hold; we just feel that contemporary artists could be trying a bit harder. As Roger Scruton said: 'art has become a joke which's ceased being funny'.

And just to clarify: We don't hate all modern art.
Just a lot of it :)

Additionally: we are open to persuasion. We wouldn't want to be exhibiting that barbarian of attributes: closed mindedness. However, we expect the same of our readers (in particular, those who comment).

We are Romantic, young, and foolish, but we're going to carry on anyway :) We might pick up a paintbrush or Biro at points too.