Roy Lichtenstein exhibition, Tate Modern

Anyone been? Off down London later this month and thinking of getting tickets

 

I've not been, but there's some damned fine artwork going on here…
http://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic/192757-it-could-happen/

 

I went a few weeks ago. It is the first time Ive ever written a complaint letter and their reply justified me doing so.

The biggest waste of space ive had the misfortune of seeing. And paying for with their large government grants.

Get to the V&A or something similar.

 

Out of interest why did you complain? I've seen Drowning Girl at MoMA and really liked it, and having watched the documentary the other week I'd like to see his Chinese landscapes which looked quite haunting.

 

Out of the 100's of exhibits I felt only a small few deserved any merit. A sewing machine wrapped in linen and wrapped in string is not a peice of art. A canvas painted entirely grey is not art. A copper box is not art. 3 breeze blocks on top of each other is not art.

My main complaint was not particular the art itself, I appreciate thats subjective to opinion. What bothers me is the vast sums that is paid for said artwork and the actual space it occupies. The Tate modern was granted £38m in government funds 2011/2012 and it hasnt had a cut in that over the last 5 years from what I saw.

The organisation can not stand on its own two feet financially and I personally felt that the funds and space could be used far more wisely in the current climate. The land alone must be worth an absolute fortune. I dont believe many people go to London to view the Tate Modern collection. Its an after thought when looking at what to do.

The reply I got to my considered complaint was a disgrace to be honest. When down the lines of telling me I clearly didnt understand the collection like a majority of their visitors. If my complaint was deemed viable then it maybe included in the AGM Meeting. I doubt it will.

 

It does seem a bit unfair to state what is and isn't art, particularly if visiting Tate Modern when by definition much will be pushing boundaries. I can understand you not liking it but to write a letter of complaint seems a bit harsh. It's a bit like going to a musical and complaining about all the singing.

Fully accept you don't like his stuff though, certainly divides opinion. But I suppose that's what art should do!

 

Oh, I had no issues with Licheststein's art work. As someone suggested, its really big cartoons. That was the reason I went (and to fill some time) and it was ok.

As I stated, my complaint wasn't about the art really, although it was the basis of. But to give an example of the meaning around one of the exhibits: 3 breeze blocks stacked on top of each other. The meaning was that when looking at it you were supposed to feel that your ankles were being covered in concrete. My thoughts were 'why have they paid £38k for this'.

Let me know what you think when youve been. Maybe I am the uneducated oik that the reply to my letter suggested.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong mate I don't get stuff like that. In fact I'm pretty dense when it comes to art. I've seen a lot of it but wouldn't pretend to get it. But I don't think I can say what is or isn't art. Maybe you could write back and tell them that your letter of complaint was art, 'man as oik in presence of bricks' or something and ask for 38k?

 

I normally agree with you but in this case I am with Dan. Some of modern art is 'emperor's new clothes'. Anything that could be knocked up in five minutes by a brickie is not art. I may be told it is by some pretentious critic and that I don't understand the meaning, but what I do understand is the financial self interest of perpetuating this myth.

Art to me is something I can't do and to describe the work of Emin and Hirst as art is in my opinion an insult to Bottecelli, Michael Angelo et al. In fact it's a right load of 'Pollocks' (see what I did there)

 

'Pollocks'

Love it.

I went to see an exhibition of Tracy Emin's drawings in York. Really changed my mind, she is very talented.

 

I'd suggest youve got every right to decide what is art and what isnt. Otherwise your surely just sharing someone else's view and not viewing objectively??

 

Went to Tate Modern on saturday, albeit only the 'free' bit (we had some friends with us with kids, was so busy we thought we'd only do the free bit). I dont have much knowledge about art but the general consensus of our party was 80% was rubbish. I liked the Picasso, Kandinsky and Mondrian stuff but little else. But then again I'm probably a cultural philistine.

 

Good point. Ok, to clarify I don't think I have the right to decide for others what is art. Which is what i suppose I was trying to say. I agree with Dave too about the emperor's new clothes comment to an extent. But I also think its easy to write off the talent and training that often underpins the more out there artists.

 

But do you need the rubbish 80% of experimentation to produce a Kandinsky? Don't know the answer, just thinking aloud.

Funnily enough my other option is to see the Picasso exhibition down the road at the Courtauld gallery.

Or as probably will happen we'll end up not leaving the pub

 

Eye of the beholder an all that, what I think is rubbish, another person may think is genius. (Coldplay are ****, bit millions of albums sold tells me I'm wrong!)

 

Pub ? Now ya talking !

 

Now there Is something we are in complete agreement. And you most certainly aren't wrong

 

My whole art gallery idea was to stop me and my old uni mates from drinking all day!

 

I'm sorry I disagree. It is art. At a very basic level, an artist has created or chosen to assemble or arrange different objects in a personal arrangement in order to raise questions or make representations of the society he or she lives in. This work is then displayed in an art gallery therefore it is art. Personally, from reading your first paragraph, I feel you have too narrow a definition of what constitutes a piece of art. Also, I feel you have fallen into the trap that most members of the public do in that the question shouldn't be whether this work is art or not but more whether it is good art or bad art. I feel that this is a more pertinent question.

I do, however, agree with you questioning the decision of whether it is wise to grant £38 million of government funds to the gallery. Personally, I don't know whether it is right or wrong but it is worth asking - I'm more concerned about the £1 Billion being spent on Trident replacement.

I don't know if people go to London to view the Tate Modern collection but I don't really think of it as an after thought as it is a big visitor attraction. From my own experiences, and I don't visit London as often as I used to, it's always busy when I've been and if I'm totally honest I've been a little disappointed with my visits their. I'm totally impressed with the architecture but the use of the space and the limited collection on view disappoints. Also, my view is partly clouded as I have fond memories of the visiting the old Tate when it included the Modern work and still feel that this is it's natural home but then who I'm I to argue with 'progress'.