| Author |
Message |
darian zam
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 333
Location: other
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
 |
|
| great technique alone don't cut it, babe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
I'm kind of surprised that there is even a discussion about whether the Archibald is conservative. It's a pretty well known fact that it is somewhat conservative. That doesn't make the paintings in it bad or unworthy and not every art prize should be reserved for cutting edge work....Why is there even an argument?
I think Simon's relayed comparison to the Melbourne Cup is pretty spot on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
darian zam
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 333
Location: other
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
Hey thanks, I thought it was obvious too!
I'm not arguing, just defending my personal belief, which I actually am entitled to. You can't have an argument when there is already a clear winner!
If *Jellybean* really wants to see some of my work, she didn't have to challenge me, she ( I'm being presumptuous because of the cutesy moniker) could easily check it out on my blog, or if she really is a glutton for punishment, she can tune in to Artworks on ABC Radio on 22 June to hear me jabber and blather about my work in a 30 minute documentary they are airing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darian zam
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 333
Location: other
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| Yes *Jellybean*, I really do love Adam Cullen's work, and the more I learn about his practice the more I like it. Some people think it's shit, some people think it's brilliant. Whatever it is, it's certainly very challenging, there's no doubt there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jelly bean
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| darian zam wrote: | Hey thanks, I thought it was obvious too!
I'm not arguing, just defending my personal belief, which I actually am entitled to. You can't have an argument when there is already a clear winner!
If *Jellybean* really wants to see some of my work, she didn't have to challenge me, she ( I'm being presumptuous because of the cutesy moniker) could easily check it out on my blog, or if she really is a glutton for punishment, she can tune in to Artworks on ABC Radio on 22 June to hear me jabber and blather about my work in a 30 minute documentary they are airing. |
Hi Zam, I had a look at your blog, but the pictures of your work are rather distant. I can't get a sense of what is really going on there. Can you send me a link to a virtual gallery?
For the record, I'd be very interested to hear you jabber on about your own work. I always find it interesting to listen to artists trying to justify their own work. You talk as if to see you get press would cause me sadness. This thought in itself is sad. Further to this, while anonymous, have definitely had a greater share of press than yourself over the years. Being on a radio show doesn't make you.
Further to your comments about Adam Cullen - I didn't suggest that I didn't like his work (Please read back). Rather, I wondered what exactly draws you to him other than the fallout. His work is in your face, yes, but is that always justified? and, for that matter, does an artist have the right to cause offense in the name of 'art'?
Anyways, I'm glad you found a means of self promotion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jelly bean
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| avangils wrote: | I'm kind of surprised that there is even a discussion about whether the Archibald is conservative. It's a pretty well known fact that it is somewhat conservative. That doesn't make the paintings in it bad or unworthy and not every art prize should be reserved for cutting edge work....Why is there even an argument?
I think Simon's relayed comparison to the Melbourne Cup is pretty spot on. |
I simply believe that this idea that the Archibald is 'conservative' is over exaggerated. In some cases, I think that it's simply an easy thing for people to say when lost for something more insightful.
If you actually look back over the years, the Archie has been far from a straight up and down. Craig Ruddy, Cullen, Whiteley and Dobell come to mind straight away... When was the last 'traditional' portrait crowned by the judges? When it comes down to it, the Moran was no more radical than the Archie this year. As an example, Simon Collin's work was conservative in many ways, centre composed, head and shoulders, typical 60 degree lighting, use of cloth to bring out skin tone in contrast... This is not to say that I don't like it. In fact, it has a certain charm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1856
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: | | ...As an example, Simon Collin's work was conservative in many ways, centre composed, head and shoulders, typical 60 degree lighting, use of cloth to bring out skin tone in contrast... This is not to say that I don't like it. In fact, it has a certain charm. |
Thanks Jelly Bean for the complement, I'm happy you like it. And it's for others to judge, (ie my work) but you are not identifying criteria that defines conservative work, just pictorial elements. You can have all those things in a work and be as contempory (as opposed to traditional) and/or subversive and/or offensive as f#ck. (no offence  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1856
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: | | .....and, for that matter, does an artist have the right to cause offense in the name of 'art'? |
Abso-f###ing-lutly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hayley
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Location: Geelong
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| Simon wrote: | | jelly bean wrote: | | .....and, for that matter, does an artist have the right to cause offense in the name of 'art'? |
Abso-f###ing-lutly! |
Couldn't have put it better Simon.
But causing an Offence in the name of art, as recent events have taught us, can be heartily debatable and ultimately educational. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
conservative and traditional are hardly the same thing. and to suggest that people who have a different view from yourself are lazy thinkers is pretty offensive.
I DO know the history of the Archies, I see it regularly and I know people who have been selected for it from time to time. It is still overall a relatively conservative prize (certainly not if you are comparing to rotary prizes). Don't just look at the winner from each year look at the whole of what gets selected and hung.
And..me too for what Simon says |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Pook
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2904
Location: Tasmania
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| avangils wrote: | | conservative and traditional are hardly the same thing. and to suggest that people who have a different view from yourself are lazy thinkers is pretty offensive. |
Sorry I'm getting a bit lost with the conversation here - can you indicate please Amanda which previous post you're referring to? I think you're talking about darian zam, but I'm not sure as I can't see where he talked about 'lazy thinkers' - maybe I didn't look far enough back? (which is also lazy!)
As for the question of an "artist's right to cause offense" I realise perhaps Simon was at least partly tongue in cheek with his answer to that, but seriously, is this an absolute right? Or are there boundaries? On the one hand I think that art, particularly satirical political art for example, ought to have the right to challenge the political and social status quo in the name of truth and justice, etc. But if you approach it from the other angle, by asking should Art have a right to offense that goes beyond the normal individual rights of people to offend, the answer gets a bit murkier doesn't it? Is Art really in a special category that excuses it from thing like the laws of libel or racial vilification for example? Are Nazi cartoons of stereotyped Jewish people okay by this appeal to exemption? I would say not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
Pook, this is the comment I was referring to, the words were not 'lazy thinker' but might as well have been.
| jelly bean wrote: |
I simply believe that this idea that the Archibald is 'conservative' is over exaggerated. In some cases, I think that it's simply an easy thing for people to say when lost for something more insightful. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1856
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
Pook, Society's rules dictate that no one has the right to break the law. But if it suits an artist's purpose to break the law, then they should. (Banksy anyone?) It just simply means the artist is known as a lawbreaker which I'm sure suits them fine. It's the artists reaction and handling of society, and they'll need to live with whatever level of lawbreaking they commit, and that's their right as an artist which will effect how they are perceived and how good their art is either positively or negatively. But the question was | jelly bean wrote: | | .....and, for that matter, does an artist have the right to cause offense in the name of 'art'? |
ie Are you allowed to offend people? The first punk music offended the world and made way for some of the best art ever created, so I still say (and quoting the full name with the vowels replaced the name of a band who I am not sure are still together) Sh#t Yeah F#ck Yeah F#ckin Oath.
With regard to racial vilification, extreme lawbreaking, etc, Pooks question, it's a bit like asking if an artist have the right to be a criminal, racist, murderer etc. or Does an artist have the right to be a moron? Do morons have the right to be artists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darian zam
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 333
Location: other
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
[while anonymous, I have definitely had a greater share of press than yourself over the years.]
I really don't think it's what matters, although it certainly can help your career if it's substantial.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| Simon wrote: | But the question was | jelly bean wrote: | | .....and, for that matter, does an artist have the right to cause offense in the name of 'art'? |
ie Are you allowed to offend people? The first punk music offended the world and made way for some of the best art ever created |
And as hard as it is to imagine now, the Impressionists offended people (anyone seen the cartoons of the time showing artists applying paint with street sweeping brooms?). Picasso offended, DuChamp offended etc. etc. etc. Disrupting what is the norm and 'offending' those who are uncomfortable with something different is part of artistic evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
