..nothing is objective,everything is subjective, not even science...I don't like the idea of an artist as a creator, we create nothing, we just rearrange things in different ways....facts all the way. love this dude
Isn’t this very simply turning the world upside down? The lower level features scaffolding, that which enables the construction of the vertical structures so important to the urban environment, but the artist elevates the soil and weeds that would normally be underneath and overlooked. It’s an inversion of how we normally experience the urban environment, the world. I don’t know about the rest, for mine the intention is simple, and very clear.
Tate modern dissapointed me greatly. I thought it wouldn't. I wanted to see Rothko, and even that was dissapointing. Everything I passed bored me or came off as 'noice', you know? It tried to be shocking, provocative, smart. The works were accompanied with long texts. It exhausted me to be in there. I have a two year higher education in art. I've seen a LOT of conceptual and provocative art. I even made it myself and it was well recieved in school by the local practicing artist teachers. After I left tate modern, shocked over just how dissapointed I was, I thought about it. I felt as if I had just seen the illness of society materialized. That what I had just seen was the concrete symptoms of the illness of the age. Cynisism, arrogance, narcissism and attempts to break every value system or norm down, ruthlessly. And I suppose that is natural, since the arts is dominated by liberals and cheeky and sometimes brave people. But so arrogant. That's when I understood that I wanted to strengthen values. Being alive is difficult, it's emotional, voulnerable and fatal. And what matters to us are things that make it worth living. Deap meaningful stories of love, fear, tragedy and hope is what makes up our lives. These stories are what grip us, and these stories are the ones we tell when we are voulnerable and want to show who we are. Our lives aren't concerned with objects or concepts - but with emotionally voulnerable stories. An object doesn't mean anything until it's placed in the context of these stories we tell. To be human(alive) is to be pathetic(patos), not intellect.
The art isn't planned or tied to any concept, and the video shows predictably that the guy has nothing to say about his art. Why was this video made? Why is this in a museum?
I'm all for government paying for museums etc: it can be great tourism magnets which make it a good investment. But this... no skill, talent, time... celebrated ignorance.
I think his work is very interesting but I'm not really sure why he should be particularly interesting or original for Tate, out of so many artists that are far more groundbreaking and radical. Isn't this just the less intellectual, less political and less thought out version of arte povera?
*This is the second episode I've stopped watching midway.* 2 points: a) literally no skill b) government supporting art. A) To compare with another Mexican artist, Diego Rivera. His artwork may not be your cup of tea. But you can recognize the talent, skill, work, time, uniqueness, aesthetic, etc etc, that takes to make. This is celebrated ignorance, literally not knowing how to put things together. B) I'm all for government supporting art, like museums,, because it can be great tourism magnet which makes it a great investment. But this is trash, again, no skill.
Diego Rivera and this guy are completely different. Not every form of art is about technical perfection. I can agree with you that this isn't really spectacular or original but if you judge him by the same criteria you use to judge Diego Rivera you won't be able to enjoy much art. Pollock is no Rivera, but Pollock isn't supposed to be Rivera, he is supposed to be Pollock. Marina Abramovic is also not Diego Rivera, but she isn't supposed to be. Every artist gives you the rules to judge him by, to paraphrase Philip Larkin.
i think diego would probably be insulted you utter his name. he was an egalitarian whose technical skills were second only to conceptual. and in this, these two have something in common. if you look in the mirror, what would you see? celebrated ignorance.
The ordinary person on the street cannot understand contemporary art. As a matter, most people through the ages, have not understood art, anyway. Let's face it, art really only appeals to people with some art background. Otherwise most people would grasp the underlying ideas, concepts, and intentions. Unfortunately, the masses don't have a clue. That's an unpleasant reality one has to face.
John Sampson Its true. The masses don't want to spend the time and energy and neither are they mentally cultured to appreciate depths of meaning even in the most mundane things.
It depends on the piece, it depends on the person, it depends on the definition of what it means to "understand" art. Not all contemporary art is highly conceptual. Not all understanding of art happens on an intellectual level (not *even close.*) Not every ordinary person is without aesthetic sensitivities. This is a massive, cliched generalization.
Total BULLSHIT! SnoBBy Artists and art critics, trying to explain the significance of Conceptual UGH! ART, is like watching Far Leftwing nutjobs trying to explain the true beauty of Communism!
Eres un gran representante de la farza que es el arte contemporaneo...
..nothing is objective,everything is subjective, not even science...I don't like the idea of an artist as a creator, we create nothing, we just rearrange things in different ways....facts all the way. love this dude
He's so wise. Lovely installation!
to each his/her own. RIDICULOUS what people consider to be art these days
i love his energy as a human being
as opposed to his energy as a porcupine?
THE JOY OF ENERGY!!!!
Isn’t this very simply turning the world upside down? The lower level features scaffolding, that which enables the construction of the vertical structures so important to the urban environment, but the artist elevates the soil and weeds that would normally be underneath and overlooked. It’s an inversion of how we normally experience the urban environment, the world. I don’t know about the rest, for mine the intention is simple, and very clear.
I love going down to the local allotment just to see the art. I won't go to the Tate to see it.
Love it. Thanks 😬
Tate modern dissapointed me greatly. I thought it wouldn't. I wanted to see Rothko, and even that was dissapointing. Everything I passed bored me or came off as 'noice', you know? It tried to be shocking, provocative, smart. The works were accompanied with long texts. It exhausted me to be in there.
I have a two year higher education in art. I've seen a LOT of conceptual and provocative art. I even made it myself and it was well recieved in school by the local practicing artist teachers.
After I left tate modern, shocked over just how dissapointed I was, I thought about it. I felt as if I had just seen the illness of society materialized. That what I had just seen was the concrete symptoms of the illness of the age. Cynisism, arrogance, narcissism and attempts to break every value system or norm down, ruthlessly.
And I suppose that is natural, since the arts is dominated by liberals and cheeky and sometimes brave people. But so arrogant.
That's when I understood that I wanted to strengthen values. Being alive is difficult, it's emotional, voulnerable and fatal. And what matters to us are things that make it worth living. Deap meaningful stories of love, fear, tragedy and hope is what makes up our lives. These stories are what grip us, and these stories are the ones we tell when we are voulnerable and want to show who we are. Our lives aren't concerned with objects or concepts - but with emotionally voulnerable stories. An object doesn't mean anything until it's placed in the context of these stories we tell.
To be human(alive) is to be pathetic(patos), not intellect.
Why isn't there a time lapse, I wanted to see what happened at the end of the exhibition, Did anything grow?
Does anyone know what he is holding in his hand at 3:58?
Where do these people get their budgets from, they seem so resourceful and yet ..
The art isn't planned or tied to any concept, and the video shows predictably that the guy has nothing to say about his art. Why was this video made? Why is this in a museum?
How do these people get paid?!!
+Taylor ∆ through comissions and grants
I'm all for government paying for museums etc: it can be great tourism magnets which make it a good investment. But this... no skill, talent, time... celebrated ignorance.
I too could not help but wonder how much this all cost. And that my friend, is why you and I will never be an artists.
Art is all kind of things...but art has to be good...art has to inspire...art is...
0:06 Art predicted coronavirus 🧐
Genius
geniale
I think his work is very interesting but I'm not really sure why he should be particularly interesting or original for Tate, out of so many artists that are far more groundbreaking and radical. Isn't this just the less intellectual, less political and less thought out version of arte povera?
All talk and no Art -
*This is the second episode I've stopped watching midway.* 2 points: a) literally no skill b) government supporting art.
A) To compare with another Mexican artist, Diego Rivera. His artwork may not be your cup of tea. But you can recognize the talent, skill, work, time, uniqueness, aesthetic, etc etc, that takes to make. This is celebrated ignorance, literally not knowing how to put things together.
B) I'm all for government supporting art, like museums,, because it can be great tourism magnet which makes it a great investment. But this is trash, again, no skill.
Diego Rivera and this guy are completely different. Not every form of art is about technical perfection. I can agree with you that this isn't really spectacular or original but if you judge him by the same criteria you use to judge Diego Rivera you won't be able to enjoy much art. Pollock is no Rivera, but Pollock isn't supposed to be Rivera, he is supposed to be Pollock. Marina Abramovic is also not Diego Rivera, but she isn't supposed to be. Every artist gives you the rules to judge him by, to paraphrase Philip Larkin.
i think diego would probably be insulted you utter his name. he was an egalitarian whose technical skills were second only to conceptual. and in this, these two have something in common. if you look in the mirror, what would you see? celebrated ignorance.
You should read cruzvillegas’ manifesto on autoconstrucción, it’s brilliant
arte loca! Abraham,wtf! the door of a stinky place???! lmfao hahahahahihihihhohohoho
He is another crap artist who cant make art anybody wants
Bringing rubbish into the Tate Museum is now considered a brilliant and bold Idea?
So true we do not create anything...
La verdad cada ves el arte moderno es más basura aire nada ...
lastima que cruz villegas crea que es arte y que un museo lo justifique
🤔
That's gardening. Nothing to do with art.
ya? Well my Winner of the fight of the cent will be $--- Every 24hrs for ever.
...you assume you already know something,and I think I know nothing! (my reflection.I know sht)
This some bullshit.
pura chaqueta
The ordinary person on the street cannot understand contemporary art. As a matter, most people through the ages, have not understood art, anyway. Let's face it, art really only appeals to people with some art background. Otherwise most people would grasp the underlying ideas, concepts, and intentions. Unfortunately, the masses don't have a clue. That's an unpleasant reality one has to face.
John Sampson Its true. The masses don't want to spend the time and energy and neither are they mentally cultured to appreciate depths of meaning even in the most mundane things.
It depends on the piece, it depends on the person, it depends on the definition of what it means to "understand" art. Not all contemporary art is highly conceptual. Not all understanding of art happens on an intellectual level (not *even close.*) Not every ordinary person is without aesthetic sensitivities. This is a massive, cliched generalization.
Preach Greendreams, preach.
Total BULLSHIT! SnoBBy Artists and art critics, trying to explain the significance of Conceptual UGH! ART, is like watching Far Leftwing nutjobs trying to explain the true beauty of Communism!
wow. arrogance is quite conducive to ignorance. hard to see past all the pomposity. the masses are rarely as stupid as you think they are, as you are.
What a The Emperor's New Clothes project. That’s why people hate this type of pretentious contemporary Art
Did not like this work.
Boy there's a lot of bad art in the world
Hopefully this kinda of crap art will lose any value it has and this decades trend of crap will end
VEALGAN GAINS well at least he inspired you to write and write again!
Can this clown evev draw?
Из этой демагогии и ничего не значащих слов я должен понимать что этот бездуховный хлам и есть искусство?