Tate Liverpool

[rebness]

Went into Liverpool yesterday to get a couple of things. I ended up (finally) with the first part of Les Miserables, some fresh mint and okra, and beer brewed by some trappist monks in the French Alps, or something.

Chris and I went to see the William Blake exhibition at one of the galleries in Liverpool, because Becky + Blake = OTP. Actually, that's a lie, because Yeats would totally make it a menage a trois.

Anyway, we ended up at the Tate on the docks, and were completely side-tracked. There was an excellent exhibition of Cubist works on. I absolutely love that movement, and though jaffacakequeen and I weren't too impressed with some of Picasso's works at the museum in Barcelona, there were some excellent paintings there. One was a Cubist-style work whereby a woman was reduced to a collage of geometric shapes. It was incredibly eerie.



Now, museums in Britain are, for the main part, free, right? This is a very good thing, but it also means that they're funded by the taxpayer. I am very happy for my money to go towards art rather than war, but dude... there were two pieces of canvas, right? This was a work by an Iranian artist living in London, and she will have received thousands of pounds for her work.

There was a large piece of white canvas, and a large piece of black canvas, adjacent to one another. That was her entire piece. The notice said that it was "an indictement of Western culture and Western materialsim...a scathing look at religious intolerance."

The hell? I'm all for reading between the lines, but it was two pieces of canvas...arrgh. This means that Ikea must be a veritable mecca for religious expression.

I ranted about it to mum today. She said that the idea is probably to laugh at the well-meaning people and their Emperor's New Clothes who would be so decadent as to pay thousands for such a thing.

I have a sneaking feeling that she's right.

Comments

[tsaress.livejournal.com]

have they got a waterhouse in liverpool tate. I can't seem to find my copy of les mis part 1 I've got part 2 and I bought both. So no point reading as yet.

[saffronlie.livejournal.com]

My menage a trois of Williams? Since Yeats is taken, Wordsworth and Shakespeare. Definitely not Langland.

[rebness.livejournal.com]

Dude, keep your Wordsworth. May he bang his head. *Shakes fist*

[verastar99.livejournal.com]

"went to see the William Blake exhibition at one of the galleries in Liverpool"


*quivers coyly*

[rebness.livejournal.com]

LMAO!

One day, Vera, one day... ;)

[leithal.livejournal.com]

A lot of modern art makes me really really angry for exactly that reason. I had to go to a modern gallery in New York last year and in one room there was just a lot of coloured string tacked to the walls and ceiling and floor, and I think the part that was actually meant to be considered the "art" was the way the string made shapes in the space. But whatever. The thing that made me angriest was that when you looked at the little card beside the room with the string, the piece was called "Untitled 3". I mean, what?? If you're going to make a piece of "art" that nobody understands, at least have the decency to call it something better than "Untitled".

Also, at the same gallery, was a room full of white paintings on white canvas displayed on white walls. I think they were supposed to be about the experience of birth, but somehow... I just couldn't see it...

[rebness.livejournal.com]

one room there was just a lot of coloured string tacked to the walls and ceiling and floor, and I think the part that was actually meant to be considered the "art" was the way the string made shapes in the space.

Muhahaha! That's exactly what I mean. Sometimes you just wonder if you're *not getting it*, but I feel it's more that people are too afraid to say anything is rubbish anymore.

[leithal.livejournal.com]

My two current housemates are art majors who love conceptual art... one of them just likes to argue with me about it, but the other agrees with me that conceptual art is just not as accessible as other art - even though its whole point is, supposedly, to be more accessible. She claims there's actually a lot of theory behind it and if you understand the theory than the art itself makes more sense but the problem is that only a few people are interested enough to look into how the movement developed, why it developed the way it did, etc., whereas it doesn't take a lot of extra learning or knowledge of art history to appreciate something because you find it attractive.

Also... I agree that maybe people are just too afraid to say "um wait, this is really silly. I'm going to look at a painting of a meadow".

[rebness.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting take on it; perhaps she's right.

The thing that gets me, though, is that you can just lose yourself in a de La Tour painting; you can ponder the meaning behind so many works. I can't ponder anything at all with two pieces of coloured cardboard. Perhaps one day, will be able to read something different in it. It frustrates me that I am so used to reading texts and art, but I find myself confounded by modern art.

And yes, pictures of meadows often win, hands-down. ;)

[diana-molloy.livejournal.com]

I personally am not a fan of modern art. Especially seeing as most of these 'artists' don't make the things themselves and it's just their idea. It seems the more riddiculous the piece of work you produce (along with some bulshit that sounds clever but in fact no matter how outside rthe box you think you cannot seee how they can come up with such a meaning) the more praise (and cash) you will receive

[rebness.livejournal.com]

but in fact no matter how outside rthe box you think you cannot seee how they can come up with such a meaning

Word.

[jadedscorpion.livejournal.com]

She said that the idea is probably to laugh at the well-meaning people and their Emperor's New Clothes who would be so decadent as to pay thousands for such a thing.

Your mum is a wise woman.

I'm an art major, and I think most modern art is crap. I had to spend a whole semester on Picasso, at least I could respect his art, compared to most. Someone in the comments had it right, no one wants to say something is crap anymore, feeling that they will look stupid for not 'getting it'. There's nothing to get! That guy painted a canvas with three strokes of a squeegee, it's random marks on a canvas, my cat spends more time making a composition in her litterbox if I give her paint.
Course they will tell you that "it's all about the process of making art, not the result".

[rebness.livejournal.com]

Thank God that you agree! I always worry that I'm missing the point with these works, but I swear, it really does look like the cat would spend more time and effort on them. ;)