Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Opinion Check

11:39 / 25.06.03

Everyone knows that it's very important these days to have strong opinions on everything and to be able to voice those opinions with confidence, even if you know f--- all about the subject. Well, I'm in a right sorry state. There are millions of gaps in my brain where there should be opinions, and loads more opinions in my head that are probably wrong. Fill me in, please. Tell me what I should be thinking.

Alternatively, do what I'm doing and use this thread to ask for opinions on matters you are not sure about.

Right now I want an opinion on:

1. The Chapman Brothers - are they taking the piss, or not?
Now, I do have an opinion here - that they are sniggering, self-satisfied, piss-taking, misanthropic wankers. But I'm worried that I might be wrong. What do you think?

2. Martin Parr - is he just taking the piss?
Or what?

Please answer the above and/or ask for opinions on some other matter.

11:53 / 25.06.03

1. The Chapman Brothers - are they taking the piss, or not?
Now, I do have an opinion here - that they are sniggering, self-satisfied, piss-taking, misanthropic wankers. But I'm worried that I might be wrong. What do you think?

I wouldn't say that they were sniggering... I went to their recent exhibition at Oxford MOMA and thought it was brilliant. The brothers themselves might well be self-satisfied, piss-taking, misanthropic wankers, I don't know, but I was bowled over by their work. It wasn't like the other pieces of theirs that I've seen - i.e. it wasn't dolls with genitalia attached to their faces, or model representations of war crimes, though it was obviously related to that (especially the models of Goya). The centrepieces were a series of etchings by Goya which the Chapmans had altered by painting cartoon faces on (and they were exquisitely done), and an installation featuring an artist's caravan plastered in porn pictures and a wolf with a sheep's head. I really didn't get the impression that they were taking the mick at all, even with the Goya stuff - it didn't feel like they were abusing the etchings in the slightest. I also thought their ink drawings were brilliant.

On the other hand, some of it was crashingly obvious - bronze statuettes of Hamburglar, etc. - but I didn't think it was lazy, and I didn't feel that my intelligence was insulted. The feel of the exhibtion was of a really mordant sense of humour, mixed in with (I thought) a deep sense of the pity, horror and piteousness of being human, and being animal at the same time... somwthing like that, it's very hard to articulate.

Very hard to talk about art without sounding hopelessly pretentious...

12:07 / 25.06.03

Excellent, interesting answer. Thank you, K-C C. Yeah, I've always been impressed by their physical skill (the models and drawings are always well executed). But I think of them as artists who don't actually approve of art, who are embarrassed by their own skill. Maybe. (I even badder at articulating.)

12:13 / 25.06.03

I'd second that. I'd previously thought of them as a pair of smug "Brit-art" c****, but that exhibition was amazing. Loads of humour, pathos (or is it bathos? - I'm never sure) and the most confusing mass of intense imagery. Like a kind of Emienm cartoon horrorshow, but good. It made me feel things I still can't articulate, and that's gotta be good.

Anyone got an opinion on Saran Lucas or Tracey Emin?

12:17 / 25.06.03

With the possible exception of Goya, I'm completely unfamiliar with any of the people so far mentioned in this thread. Imagine what the gaps in my brain must be like, Sav..

Alphonse commands you!

12:18 / 25.06.03

I'd love to see that Chapman Brothers show - is it coming to London at all? Don't fancy trudging down to the provinces to see it.

And Martin Parr is, I think, not taking the piss at all, merely trying to make his way in an heartless, artless world. I particularly liked the artistic way every photo had four or five (c) Magnum Photos logos scattered over it so that you couldn't steal it off the internet and pass it off as your own.

I did like the Bored Couples collection, though.

12:26 / 25.06.03

I think it was a one-off as an exhibition, and it has finished now (we have Monica Bonvicini at the moment, MOMA is great), but I bet the pieces will end up in London at some stage.

12:44 / 25.06.03

Saveloy

I think of them as artists who don't actually approve of art, who are embarrassed by their own skill.

That's a really good way of phrasing that... thing... that I can never quite verbalise that I feel when looking at some art. Thanks, I might steal that occasionally if you don't mind.

15:44 / 25.06.03

illmatic:

"Anyone got an opinion on Saran Lucas or Tracey Emin?"

No opinion on Sarah Lucas at all. Wouldn't rush to see a show by her, anyway. Tracey Emin - I like some of the drawings I've seen, but generally like her a lot more than I like her art. She comes across as being someone who actually gets a kick out of doing her thing. Of the whole Brit Crap lot, she's the keenest to talk about her work and is one of few whose work doesn't have me thinking "which member of the audience is the target this time?" Moody sophisticats will hate her because she's all about herself, and I used to find that annoying myself, but I prefer it now to the "you are all dosy c***s" vibe I get from a lot of artists. Plus she looks a bit like my Auntie Elsie (deceased).

Mr. Livedog:

"And Martin Parr is, I think, not taking the piss at all, merely trying to make his way in an heartless, artless world."

Ah, but he's making his way by taking the piss, isn't he? I suppose I should ask if it's an affectionate piss-take or not.

Regrettable Juvenilia

18:36 / 25.06.03

Did you see that "ordinary folk live with some modern art for a week" feature in the Guardian on Saturday, Sav? Very interesting contrast between the attitudes of Tracey Emin and one of the Chapman brothers (can't remember which offhand) to their audience. Emin's work - one of her rough, minimalist 'drawing + phrase' pieces - met with a largely bemused and negative reaction from an elderly lady, but the artist herself seemed fine with this, claiming that even though Beryl (or whatever) hadn't actually liked the piece much, she'd pretty much got the jist of it. What a refreshing change from the "ah, you don't like it 'cos you haven't understood it properly!" attitude that you frequently encounter from people's fans, let alone artists themselves... (I'm in complete agreement with you about Emin, by the way.)

The Chapman(s), on the other hand... Their piece - a small doll figure with a penis for a nose - lived with three guys in their early twenties for a week. They seemed quite positive about it, to varying degress, and had a variety of things to say about it, most of which I thought were accurate, and expressed well enough. But the brother Chapman disagreed. "None of them have said anything insightful about it at all", he sneered, befoe going on for several paragraphs in the same vein. Speaking of veins, this weekend, he's going to be surprised to wake up to discover that I have sawn off his hands and feet. The arrogant motherfucking son of a childmolester.

21:07 / 25.06.03

Interesting, Flyboy - I was about to post saying exactly the opposite about the Guardian piece: that Emin had been completely dishonest and tedious, trying to cover herself and pretend she had no opinions about her own art by claiming that "hey, yeah, man, anything anyone says about it is cool", whereas the Chapman boy had had the courage of his own convictions in a way that made me fall for him totally. I mean, if someone who knows fuck-all about art can exhaust the meaning of an artwork in two or three very flat, conventional, predictable sentences ("It's phallic, it's vulnerable, it's confrontational", blah blah blah) - if you think that can sum up the meaning of your art - what is the point of making it in the first place?

Anyway. Yes. I love the Chapman Brothers.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:07 / 26.06.03

if someone who knows fuck-all about art can exhaust the meaning of an artwork in two or three very flat, conventional, predictable sentences ("It's phallic, it's vulnerable, it's confrontational", blah blah blah) - if you think that can sum up the meaning of your art - what is the point of making it in the first place?

But hang on, you're shifting the goalposts: nobody was claiming to exhaust or sum up the meaning of the piece. That's not what the Chapman said either: he said they'd failed to offer *any* insight into the work, which I think was as demonstrably false as you can get in a case like this.

12:02 / 26.06.03

Here's a link to the article Flyboy and Deva are talking about.

12:10 / 26.06.03

Actually, Flyboy, Emin sez ". Even though she didn't like the image, unwittingly she had a great understanding of it," which certainly is not that different than "you didn't like it because you didn't understand it properly. There's still an assumption of ignorance on the part of the "common person" explicit in Emin's reaction to grandmum's reactions.

15:57 / 26.06.03

Thanks for the link, Todd.

Deva:

"I was about to post saying exactly the opposite about the Guardian piece: that Emin had been completely dishonest and tedious, trying to cover herself and pretend she had no opinions about her own art by claiming that "hey, yeah, man, anything anyone says about it is cool", whereas the Chapman boy had had the courage of his own convictions in a way that made me fall for him totally."

I liked Emin's response because, having said that the old woman hadn't quite got it, she actually made an effort to explain the title ("Dog Brains is a name I'd call a woman behaving like a dog, but I meant it in a derogatory sense."), whereas Chapman only seemed interested in slagging the 3 blokes off ("you don't need to show me a picture of these people, I could tell you what they look like, what they watch and what they wear" which is a very 'anal, adolescant male' sort of comment). And having complained that they had nothing illuminating to say, gave us the enormously illuminating comment that "it's a cute fairy trapped in a bell jar".

Btw, Deva, were you thinking of Lucas rather than Emin? Her response seemed more of the "yeah, whatever, it's phallic, blah blah" sort.

Here's another one:

3. Stewart Home
I've read one thing by Home, an online bit about the KLF's anti Turner Prize wheeze (I'll find the link later). He used the phrase "avant hip satirists". Am I right to hate him because of that?

19:58 / 26.06.03

I read that article as well, thought the Chapman came across as an complete wanker, despite the positive reaction I've had to his artwork. Those guys probably reminded him of the blokes who used to beat him up at school.

Tracey Emin, on the other hand, I think is pretty genuine. Her response here sort of chimes in with some of the responses to her "Bed" piece - she was dead chuffed that it was featured in the tabloids, there was one article with various mothers going on about their teenage daughter's messy bedrooms, "I could do that! She calls it art" etc etc. She seemed really happy with this response. Seems to me like she's got a bit of sympathy for ordinary people, unlike Cuntface Chapman.

I like her a lot, the little I know of her. Her stuff seems to express the up and downs of the life she's had, being this mad women from Margate. She seems to make even the ordinary odds and sods of life special. Dunno - hard to talk about.

The reason I asked about Sarah Lucas was that I've always been petty indifferent to her stuff when I've seen photos of it, but then I saw one of the cakes (s per The Guardian article) in The Whitechapel Gallery, and it was just - right. It was just the right thing to do. The like Twatface Chapman says in that article "it'sabout knowing you've made the right object". Seemed to have all these nuances about women, homeaking, all this suggestive stuff, just summed up in one simple silly object. Like a lot of the other work here it expressed soemthing I can't articulate very well. I just wondered if anyone else had seen any of her stuff and had the same reaction.

22:49 / 26.06.03

In my head, you all sound like Tom Paulin. Go on! Do the bit where you wave yr glasses about and say "No" too much, even though everyone's both A: agreeing with what you've said and B: not actually talking any more so you don't need to talk over them.

15:21 / 27.06.03

[threadrot]

_pin:

"In my head, you all sound like Tom Paulin."

Ha ha! I would pay good money to hear Paulin say: "...seems to me like she's got a bit of sympathy for ordinary people, unlike C**tface Chapman," on Late Review. I doubt that Tony will agree with me on this but that would have to be worth 20 quid of anybody's money. Germaine?

[/threadrot]