The Difference between ART & TAT (Part 2)

Back in April, I did a ranty (potentially controversial) post about my opinion of the modern art scene. I spoke about reading too deep into simple pieces of art, that opinion aside, detracts from the actual piece.  If you missed it, you can find it here. I found that post and this post two of my absolute favourites simply because I felt that I wrote with such passion that doesn't always come through in an ordinary post. I've been doing more thinking, and have decided that a Part 2 is necessary to accentuate the original post.

On Saturday I went to a fine art exhibition, as well as a graphics exhibition, fashion exhibition, and 3D sculpture exhibition. It was by no means a huge deal, as it was my locals art's college class of 2014 works exhibition basically. While there, as much as I enjoyed it, I felt rather displeased with the grades some got in comparison to others. For example, there was one lad there who did these absolutely fabulous, realistic portraits. I was extremely impressed. Also there, was a girl that (although is no doubt very talented I assume) final piece was a sheet of vinyl plastic with a red circle in the centre in the shape of a dress. I am by no means belittling her or her work. I found out afterwards that this 'Vinyl Girl' got a distinction, while the portrait painter got a pass. I'm not one hundred percent on the criteria that needed to be covered to achieve this 'distinction', but for a grade that is completely based on this final piece, I was rather shocked to fin that this wonderful portrait painter had not done better.

'Eye of the Storm' and 'An Oak Tree' by Michael Craig Martin

This all rolls back to my original argument, that to me, the best things in art should either have or involve  A) obvious, physical talent visible to the eye B) a deep meaning showing a political statement, or at least critical thinking.

Now I  utterly understand that art and fashion are two industries that are completely run by opinion. There's no scientific facts or no 'right and wrong', but I find it ever so hard for those with a genuine talent in drawing, painting, sculpting, whatever - to be less appreciated then someone with a somewhat crazy idea that someone thought actually works.

Michael Craig-Martin is an extremely talented, forward thinking artist; a man whom I have much respect for. He's absolutely great at graphics, and has produced some really great works of art. I'm not sure if it's just me, but I find it terribly sad that the one piece of art he is famous for, he intended to be a joke, but the art world went crackers for. 'An Oak Tree' is a work of art that included a shelf and a glass of water. I'm not terribly bothered what this is suppose to be, but what bothers me is the fact that this is regarded oh so highly to art critics and lovers alike, but his other visual 2D art, (and so many others) is simply not recognised. Call me old fashioned, but I think it's all rather bonkers.






Because of the whole 'the art world is an opinion based industry' statement, I firmly believe because of that, too few actually express their feelings about a piece of art, but instead label it all these (in my opinion, hilarious) long, hard-to-pronounce words to make them sound clever and educated; to go along with the crowd perhaps. Honestly, I'm only too sick and tired of it.

I'm not saying stop respecting these artists or you don't know what you're talking about, but instead, lets also appreciate the talented people doing the paintings, the sculptors, the cuttings, who need to be recognised too. What do you think?