BBC radio4 Debate

i found this discussion incredibly shallow and meaningless, avoiding the deeper issues. The question isn't about money, it's about humanity in art. There are and always have been very 'human' people, in any given field, who also have been very successful, just as much there are people driven by money and glamour. Much of current art in galleries doesn't come from the heart, and therefore cannot see clearly, and the question is really why we create a visual culture that doesn't heal and inspire us

******************************************************* ** Ulrich Osterloh

[snip]

True, but maybe that interesting in itself and says a lot about the Radio 4 audience? (of which I'm a member, I don't listen to any other station)

Looking forward to listening to this later...I like the debates but missed this week's as I was working. At least the subject will make a change from politics. Thanks for the link N.H.

That's just ridiculous! The debate was *This house believes that Contemporary Art is more about money than art*. The arguments, that resonate here in rec.arse.find, provided a balance for both sides of the debate. On the one side a number of academics and intellects claiming a lack of interest in skill and on the other a group of artists and collectors who believe that contemporary mainstream artists are dealing with important issues that affect society and the way we think within it- indeed humanity. One of the strongest arguments was that today's art is not less important or more important than art of the past, but different. This has been dealt with by aesthetics for many years now and Lyotard, for instance, has demonstrated that it is impossible to deal with art of the past alongside art of the present. It is what he calls a *differend* - two issues that share no idioms by which we can disuss them.

The house lost (but only just - 7 to 6 votes) and I believe that the public also voted (I did) and I am sure that the house will have lost on that also (but will have to check).

So what was your problem with the debate?????

Alison A Raimes

But can you not see that most of the issues debated on this ng were touched upon in this debate? Just because you might disagree with some of it, or found it did not go deeply enough into whatever issues you are hot on, then this is no fault, there was 45 minutes given to this. Name another debate you prefer to this one. Start off your thread on any subject and show us how you would have preferred the debate to go. I was hoping you might have been inspired by this debate. Your question about why we create art and what is current art doing is a start, but you might have come off the fence and given us your opinion. N.H

i found this discussion incredibly shallow and meaningless, avoiding the deeper issues. The question isn't about money, it's about humanity in art. There are and always have been very 'human' people, in any given field, who also have been very successful, just as much there are people driven by money and glamour. Much of current art in galleries doesn't come from the heart, and therefore cannot see clearly, and the question is really why we create a visual culture that doesn't heal and inspire us

******************************************************* ** Ulrich Osterloh

its obvious today's art is just as important as art from other times and ages - every age brings forth art. This doesn't mean that much of Britart ( thats what this debate was about) is necessarily the genuine art of our culture. in a way, only time can tell what has meaning enough to last in the collective consciousness . shifting the argument to the money aspect of the art-world, and a silly discussion about 'skills' and missed drawing classes at college another opportunity was missed to talk about the deeper issues at hand, issues such as the lack of love in so much 'modern' art. I have never come across any discussion or debate which addressed the issue of love, although it's the only thing that can make a piece 'work'. Egyptian art is highly (even ultimately) conceptual as well as filled with the spirit of love and reverence for life, thats why it's still loved and cherished. Some of Joseph Beuys's and James Lee Byars' work might survive because of their love and faith in the human being

The lack of 'love' in modern art. I wonder if there is some other word or phrase which might help explain. Perhaps you could start to explain the way modern art portays it's 'message'. I'm all for love, but you have left me at the starting post. I should explain that of the artists you mentioned, I did not receive any message from their works, particularly anything that would connect each artist. I did not spend much time reading the texts as I demand that art presents it's own message at least in part, and that part being the major part. How was the dicussion on skills silly? Do you have something to add or is it skill that is the silly part? Every age brings forth art. Agreed. I say that 20th Century art - that which you are calling Modern art- speaks volumes in a way that the artists did not mean. The trivial compositions of the minimalists, the decline in effort to demonstrate skills in drawing and brushwork, the discarding of representational work, the fads, here today, gone tomorrow, the fact that (as mentioned in the debate) that much of it will not last as no effort has been made to use materials and construction to do so. A shallow society, leaning ever more to the whims of youth, a disrespect for anything that might have a history, a complete carelessness for the future, a total fixation on materialism, the exploration in all it's forms of the 'self' at the expense of all else. These are the messages writ large in our 'modern' galleries. The debate as all debates had it's difficulties, but a newsgroup allows one time to think before posting, so it's here that the debate could enlarge. N.H

its obvious today's art is just as important as art from other times and ages - every age brings forth art. This doesn't mean that much of Britart ( thats what this debate was about) is necessarily the genuine art of our culture. in a way, only time can tell what has meaning enough to last in the collective consciousness . shifting the argument to the money aspect of the art-world, and a silly discussion about 'skills' and missed drawing classes at college another opportunity was missed to talk about the deeper issues at hand, issues such as the lack of love in so much 'modern' art. I have never come across any discussion or debate which addressed the issue of love, although it's the only thing that can make a piece 'work'. Egyptian art is highly (even ultimately) conceptual as well as filled with the spirit of love and reverence for life, thats why it's still loved and cherished. Some of Joseph Beuys's and James Lee Byars' work might survive because of their love and faith in the human being

the word modern is in quotation marks in my posting as well. There is a beautiful line by Simone Weil: 'If you really want to be modern, you have to talk about eternal things'

'Modern' art seems such a strange concept. If you look at Rembrandt's work, for example, it simply cannot become dated, because genuine feeling and experience went into it. It's modern because it is still up-to-date. I dare say this about many Joseph Beuys sculptures and drawings, and would also like to stand by the other artists mentioned, especially Frans Widerberg's work.

yes, i found the radio 4 debate very silly, but that really is my own impression i guess. somebody else may have heard something in there which positively or negatively moved him to arrive at a new insight into life. it also made me write a couple of postings, helping me to think more clearly about my own understanding of art and life. so we can never know what something 'bad' is good for really. God moves in mysterious way, and all things serve love.