P Chirouze

Good evening !

My name is Pierre Chirouze, I am a 58 French photographer, visiting
London with my wife Paule next week.

We would appreciate visiting the Tate Modern in the company of a London
couple, to exchange comments about the works to be seen there, and
views on art in general.

Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
opens till 22:00 on these days.

Get back to me at : [email protected] until Thursday morning,

[email protected] thereafter.

Best regards,

Please pass this message on to London friends or artists siblings if
you do not feel personally concerned.

Pierre

Icono Clast

[email protected] wrote:
    > Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
    > opens till 22:00 on these days.

Three hours for the Tate?!? Y'gotta be kidding!
__________________________________________________ __________
One of (as of 2003) 751,682 residents of San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn

Icono Clast <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
    > > opens till 22:00 on these days.
    >
    > Three hours for the Tate?!? Y'gotta be kidding!

Why? Three hours is a perfectly feasible time for visiting the Tate
Modern, actually, especially if not visiting any current special
exhibitions, and at this time of year- it's an excellent way to spend an
evening.

I usually spend an hour or so when I'm there, but that's because there
are usually only certain works I'm interested in seeing. That's one of
the real advantages of the free museums in the UK- you don't feel you
have to spend ages inside to get your money's worth, and you don't feel
you have to see every exhibit. You tend to get tired of trying to see
everything in a gallery.

However, the actual number of viewable exhibits at the Tate Modern is
not as vast as you find at some other museums. Some people go just to
see the main hall (it's a converted power plant) and I don't think
there's anything wrong in that, either.

When I pass the National Gallery, for example, I often just pop in for a
quarter of an hour, just to view the Vermeers, of which I'm very fond.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

The Reids

Following up to Icono Clast

    >> Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
    >> opens till 22:00 on these days.
    >Three hours for the Tate?!? Y'gotta be kidding!

much too long.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn

    >However, the actual number of viewable exhibits at the Tate Modern is
    >not as vast as you find at some other museums. Some people go just to
    >see the main hall (it's a converted power plant) and I don't think
    >there's anything wrong in that, either.

Best bit for me, most of the rest of it just mystifies me. What's
the chemist shop for? Why does a glass of water called an oak
tree mean anything? The big spider thing looks quite interesting,
just like the one in Bilbao. In fact, apart from a short period
when the impressionists were around, and Turners later stuff, I
wouldn't miss much of the art that ends up in major galleries,
while I quite often like stuff I see in craft type little shops
when on holiday. Sculpture can be better, often rather attractive
but overhyped and overpriced. I must be a philistine or something
but i'm not the only one as I have seen people at Tate modern
staring at boxes containing the aircon or something similar.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn

The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
    >
    > >However, the actual number of viewable exhibits at the Tate Modern is
    > >not as vast as you find at some other museums. Some people go just to
    > >see the main hall (it's a converted power plant) and I don't think
    > >there's anything wrong in that, either.
    >
    > Best bit for me, most of the rest of it just mystifies me. What's
    > the chemist shop for? Why does a glass of water called an oak
    > tree mean anything? The big spider thing looks quite interesting,
    > just like the one in Bilbao. In fact, apart from a short period
    > when the impressionists were around, and Turners later stuff, I
    > wouldn't miss much of the art that ends up in major galleries,
    > while I quite often like stuff I see in craft type little shops
    > when on holiday. Sculpture can be better, often rather attractive
    > but overhyped and overpriced. I must be a philistine or something
    > but i'm not the only one as I have seen people at Tate modern
    > staring at boxes containing the aircon or something similar.

Well, that's a view, I suppose, and you don't _have_ to like modern art,
and even if you do, you don't have to live everything you see. The Tate
has a heck of a lot more than you describe above though- including a
pretty substantial amount of work by major 20th century figures.

I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
without comparing it to, say, more representative art, then you might
see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
also a part of art. Whenever I'm there, I see a lot of people looking at
the exhibits with a mixture of wonder, shock, fun, whatever- but on the
whole there are a lot of enthusiastic visitors. It's not a question of
'understanding' it (I'm rarely interested in explanations about what a
piece of art may or may not mean)- simply a question of looking at it-
and if a lot more people dropped their preconceptions and inhibitions
about some of what they see, I imagine some people might enjoy it more.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

nitram

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:58:58 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
    >>However, the actual number of viewable exhibits at the Tate Modern is
    >>not as vast as you find at some other museums. Some people go just to
    >>see the main hall (it's a converted power plant) and I don't think
    >>there's anything wrong in that, either.
    >Best bit for me, most of the rest of it just mystifies me. What's
    >the chemist shop for?

Condoms?

    > Why does a glass of water called an oak
    >tree mean anything?

Advert for Acorn Computers?

I give John Cartmell 10 minutes to respond.


--
Martin

The Reids

Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn

    >I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
    >without comparing it to, say, more representative art,

I'm not keen on most of the representative art either, the old
master type stuff usually bores me, people go on about "brush
strokes" and I just think, so what? Once Ive seen one madonna and
child that's enough old brown paintings for me.

    >then you might
    >see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
    >also a part of art.

I've got no problem with things being abstract, although I cant
see the point of ugly art, unless it *does* have some meaning
beyond being itself.

    >Whenever I'm there, I see a lot of people looking at
    >the exhibits with a mixture of wonder, shock, fun, whatever- but on the
    >whole there are a lot of enthusiastic visitors.

Yes, I'm sure others appreciate it. Sachhi is obviously clever
and collects the stuff, so it means something to him.

    >It's not a question of 'understanding' it (I'm rarely interested in explanations about what a
    >piece of art may or may not mean)-

The explanations you see certainly just read like bullshit to me.
When people try and explain science they try and do it simply to
get the point across, with art they use the most obscure language
they can muster.

    >simply a question of looking at it-
    >and if a lot more people dropped their preconceptions and inhibitions
    >about some of what they see, I imagine some people might enjoy it more.

There is a double wall of cast iron in the Guggenheim at Bilbao
which makes your footsteps sound odd as you walk through it,
which looked and sounded good and they didn't tell me off for
banging on the sides to make a nice noise. I thought it would be
nice in a park, I would probably be willing to pay cost + £200
for it rather than the £1m its probably "worth". They had a load
of mobiles too, but you were not allowed to make them move.

All in all I think i'm far more impressed by architecture and
design than upmarket fine art, I prefer the couple of small
cheapish abstract scuptures/vases/bowls I have bought in craft
shops to most of the stuff in museums. Ditto I prefer the
representational prints I have bought and good landscape
photographs to 99% of the abstract painting I see in the Tate.

Installations, don't start me on installations :-)
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn

The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
    >
    > >I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
    > >without comparing it to, say, more representative art,
    >
    > I'm not keen on most of the representative art either, the old
    > master type stuff usually bores me, people go on about "brush
    > strokes" and I just think, so what?

It can make a difference though.

    > Once Ive seen one madonna and
    > child that's enough old brown paintings for me.
    >
    > >then you might
    > >see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
    > >also a part of art.
    >
    > I've got no problem with things being abstract, although I cant
    > see the point of ugly art, unless it *does* have some meaning
    > beyond being itself.

I think it often does. There's a lot of ugliness in pop art for example.

[]
    > There is a double wall of cast iron in the Guggenheim at Bilbao
    > which makes your footsteps sound odd as you walk through it,
    > which looked and sounded good and they didn't tell me off for
    > banging on the sides to make a nice noise. I thought it would be
    > nice in a park, I would probably be willing to pay cost + £200
    > for it rather than the £1m its probably "worth". They had a load
    > of mobiles too, but you were not allowed to make them move.
    >
    > All in all I think i'm far more impressed by architecture and
    > design than upmarket fine art, I prefer the couple of small
    > cheapish abstract scuptures/vases/bowls I have bought in craft
    > shops to most of the stuff in museums.

Well, I like my little knick-nacks too, but I think there's also a place
for high art. A friend of mine has acquired a few glass pieces recently.
They're extremely expensive- many thousands of pounds- but they really
are exquisite. I couldn't afford such things, but I'm very happy to
admire the works owned by those who can.

    > Ditto I prefer the
    > representational prints I have bought and good landscape
    > photographs to 99% of the abstract painting I see in the Tate.
    >
    > Installations, don't start me on installations :-)

Well, there was Cornelia Parker's blown up shed suspended in a room at
the Tate a few years ago. I thought it was breathtaking, and went to see
it many times. Evidently, so did other people, it was always full, and
they had to limit the number of visitors. It's just a plain old garden
shed with bits of old junk, blown up and suspended with wires with a
bare light bulb in the middle. Sounds cheap, sounds easy- the kind of
thing 'anyone could do' right? Thing is, no one _did_ do it, she did-
and it was a very memorable, even moving, work of art for me.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Rita

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:18:29 +0000, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:


    >I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
    >without comparing it to, say, more representative art, then you might
    >see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
    >also a part of art. Whenever I'm there, I see a lot of people looking at
    >the exhibits with a mixture of wonder, shock, fun, whatever- but on the
    >whole there are a lot of enthusiastic visitors. It's not a question of
    >'understanding' it (I'm rarely interested in explanations about what a
    >piece of art may or may not mean)- simply a question of looking at it-
    >and if a lot more people dropped their preconceptions and inhibitions
    >about some of what they see, I imagine some people might enjoy it more.

A work of art either "speaks to me" somehow or it does not. Abstract
art can be beautiful indeed. Or at least interesting. Visited Tate Modern
during two trips to London last spring. Also the Saatchi Gallery -- what
a hoot that is. I think any major gallery such as Tate Modern is best done
in small doses. That is the way I do New York City art museums, but I live
there and have the luxury of popping in and out to view just a few works.

dcojqttg

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/North...ties/A/Admire/

The Reids

Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn

    >Well, there was Cornelia Parker's blown up shed suspended in a room at
    >the Tate a few years ago. I thought it was breathtaking, and went to see
    >it many times. Evidently, so did other people, it was always full, and
    >they had to limit the number of visitors. It's just a plain old garden
    >shed with bits of old junk, blown up and suspended with wires with a
    >bare light bulb in the middle. Sounds cheap, sounds easy- the kind of
    >thing 'anyone could do' right? Thing is, no one _did_ do it, she did-
    >and it was a very memorable, even moving, work of art for me.

I saw something rather similar with a grand piano that spewed its
works from the ceiling. Nice. The "anyone could do it" test is an
interesting one. Artists now are "allowed" to have craftsmen do
the work for them, which turns them into ideas people or
designers. A lot of people who never really had much idea what
art was were comfortable as long as it involved craft skill as
they didn't understand the difference between craft and art and
could just say "that's skillful, that's art". They are now
confused.
I'm fairly confused too, there now seems to be quite a lot of
stuff just designed to shock, painting with shit, blood or semen,
pissing in snow, pornography, dead bodies w.h.y. The artist as
self publicist, lets have a bit more starving in garrets, I say.
Mind you, "sex sells" is nothing new in art is it? All those
respectable people looking at nude paintings, "nothing to do with
sex, darling, its art", funny how the male artists usually
painted attractive girls, tried it myself years ago but I could
never get the girls to take their clothes off, perhaps if i'd had
a studio rather than the corner of the bedroom or even some
talent?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to Rita

    >A work of art either "speaks to me" somehow or it does not. Abstract
    >art can be beautiful indeed. Or at least interesting.

Heres my picture of something beautiful at Tate Modern:-
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/thame212x.htm"

and its free :-)
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

nitram

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:40:31 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Rita
    >>A work of art either "speaks to me" somehow or it does not. Abstract
    >>art can be beautiful indeed. Or at least interesting.
    >Heres my picture of something beautiful at Tate Modern:-
    >"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/thame212x.htm"
    >and its free :-)

Nothing but sunsets nowadays ...
--
Martin

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn

The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
    > I saw something rather similar with a grand piano that spewed its
    > works from the ceiling. Nice. The "anyone could do it" test is an
    > interesting one. Artists now are "allowed" to have craftsmen do
    > the work for them, which turns them into ideas people or
    > designers.

This has been the case, probably as far back as it goes. Do you think
Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel by himself?

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk