Modern Art

I can't help but feel people aren't making the distinction between 'art' and 'artform'.

Maybe i'm totally deluded or this is common knowledge, but i thought it's impossible to buy 'art' as it's an intangible thing.
You can only buy the form of art, for example a painting. To me this is comparable to owning any physical object.

This gives me a certain peace and contentment because as long as you conceptually engage with the work then you don't really
need to pay money to buy pieces or pay an entry fee.

(I'm not saying I'm right, this is just how I think about it)

The Friedrich Kunarth show at the White Cube is very good. Think it's finishes tomorrow.

Lol, I know what you mean but that does sound a bit like Brian Sewell. "And the people, the people, my God, quite ghastly, herds of them, everywhere".

You describe it so well.

Oh my brain.

I can't help but feel people aren't making the distinction between 'art' and 'artform'.

Maybe i'm totally deluded or this is common knowledge, but i thought it's impossible to buy 'art' as it's an intangible thing.
You can only buy the form of art, for example a painting. To me this is comparable to owning any physical object.

This gives me a certain peace and contentment because as long as you conceptually engage with the work then you don't really
need to pay money to buy pieces or pay an entry fee.

(I'm not saying I'm right, this is just how I think about it)

Did you meditate on this whilst riding a hobby horse?

I can't help but feel people aren't making the distinction between 'art' and 'artform'.

Maybe i'm totally deluded or this is common knowledge, but i thought it's impossible to buy 'art' as it's an intangible thing.
You can only buy the form of art, for example a painting. To me this is comparable to owning any physical object.

This gives me a certain peace and contentment because as long as you conceptually engage with the work then you don't really
need to pay money to buy pieces or pay an entry fee.

(I'm not saying I'm right, this is just how I think about it)

I think on the whole people are very able to make the distinction, although the gallery system and popular press would have us evaluate our relationship with art in a commercial manner... (is apile of bricks really worth x thousand? Should Hirst be charging what he does etc?... BOOOORING!)

I agree with you Jambon - being a maker of art and a viewer of art primarily I see the experience of ownership in the same way. Obviously I have been known to 'trade' art - my work is collected by people, but the transaction need not be exclusive to the notion of non commercial ownership. In fact, when it works really well a collector understands that they are not able to 'own' the art per-se, but are custodians of the 'artform' (to quote you) through which the experience of the art travels. I think someone who has commercial ownership of something might actually be thrilled by the potential of owning something so intangible, so subjective, which has multiple implications based on its location, the time in which it is being viewed and of course by the very people who are able to confront it.

I'm certain that if I were a serious collector and able to take on some of my favourite works, I would see myself as caretaker primarily, that I would have a duty of care to their presentation and contextualisation. But I'm not, so I go to galleries and museums and I have an experience with art as a continuous, shifting multifaceted notional thing. As you point out Jambon, that can be as rewarding an experience as any collector with a speculative eye on value will ever experience.

Right. Time for a bit of shameless self promotion. What do we think of my contribution to Modern Art? New show opens in Moscow in a couple of weeks:

http://www.allvisualarts.org/artists/reece-jones/categories/ControlTest.aspx

(Tin hat time).

i could look at this all day

That's the one I can't afford. :(

Love that piece.

Aroogah... See Jambon's insightful words on ownership above. I may never eat again, but he/she has a damn good point. x

I can't help but feel people aren't making the distinction between 'stuff I don't own' and 'stuff I would really like to own'.

Maybe i'm totally deluded or this is common knowledge, but i thought it's impossible to buy 'art' as framing is ridiculously expensive and adds to the cost.

You can only buy the form of art, for example a painting, but you have to get that shit framed. To me this is fundamental to owning any sort of painting or sketch that needs protection.

This really pisses me off because as long as the framing bastards are taking a huge whack out of the top, then the artists will never get money from people buying things.

Ha! Fair dos.

The alternative is that I take the caretaker argument to it's logical conclusion and I agree to house the art for you, and for that privilege, I charge you caretaker fees. It would guarantee you that don't eat again and I get the art for my lifetime. :)

Frick! I blame Jambon for this... Bloody idealist.

I think on the whole people are very able to make the distinction, although the gallery system and popular press would have us evaluate our relationship with art in a commercial manner... (is apile of bricks really worth x thousand? Should Hirst be charging what he does etc?... BOOOORING!)

I agree with you Jambon - being a maker of art and a viewer of art primarily I see the experience of ownership in the same way. Obviously I have been known to 'trade' art - my work is collected by people, but the transaction need not be exclusive to the notion of non commercial ownership. In fact, when it works really well a collector understands that they are not able to 'own' the art per-se, but are custodians of the 'artform' (to quote you) through which the experience of the art travels. I think someone who has commercial ownership of something might actually be thrilled by the potential of owning something so intangible, so subjective, which has multiple implications based on its location, the time in which it is being viewed and of course by the very people who are able to confront it.

I'm certain that if I were a serious collector and able to take on some of my favourite works, I would see myself as caretaker primarily, that I would have a duty of care to their presentation and contextualisation. But I'm not, so I go to galleries and museums and I have an experience with art as a continuous, shifting multifaceted notional thing. As you point out Jambon, that can be as rewarding an experience as any collector with a speculative eye on value will ever experience.

That's interesting that you say the notion of owning something intangible could be thrilling to people, I'd never considered that.
Thinking about it slightly deeper, my mind is struggling to understand how you can own such a thing.
As an 'artist' (whatever that means) myself, I don't even feel that i own the pieces I've created like they answer to a higher realm (what do I sound like?).

This really pisses me off because as long as the framing bastards are taking a huge whack out of the top, then the artists will never get money from people buying things.

I used dressmakers pins to secure my current exhibition work, very liberating:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelrolph/5793723814/sizes/l/in/photostream/

I used to use pins too (still do from time to time). Where was that installation shot taken Jambon? Can we see more?

The effect (or lack of) they give is quite nice isn't it.
I've never been a fan of presenting my work, making intangible art works will be part of my next series.
Currently it's at my small time University in Hertfordshire, and you can catch it at the Association of Photographer's from 4th july to 9th july.
Also some more info about the work on my site http://michaelrolph.co.uk/

Lots to take in there (for a chap who isn't a fan of presenting his work:) so if you don't mind I for one am taking a coco to bed. I'm going to have a proper good peruse after I've been for a ride in the morning. Nighty night.

Anish Kapoor

^Pfft. It's already been done.

Goatse>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I can't help but feel people aren't making the distinction between 'stuff I don't own' and 'stuff I would really like to own'.

Maybe i'm totally deluded or this is common knowledge, but i thought it's impossible to buy 'art' as framing is ridiculously expensive and adds to the cost.

You can only buy the form of art, for example a painting, but you have to get that shit framed. To me this is fundamental to owning any sort of painting or sketch that needs protection.

This really pisses me off because as long as the framing bastards are taking a huge whack out of the top, then the artists will never get money from people buying things.

Depends who's doing the framing.

I've used a little high street framer about a mile from my house before now. A proper craftsman, using only the best materials. He framed an old photograph for me in walnut for about twenty pounds. It was only small, admittedly, but even a large project like the piece above would prove to be a fraction of the price charged by a gallery affiliated framer.

I'll bet if you shopped around you could get the framing done at a pretty reasonable rate.

Darbyshire, john jones and simon beaugie are the framers I would use on something £££

Ray from Ray's glass on hackney road is a good chap and does framing for a good price.

Maybe pendragon as well but less than the other three.

So Jambon... I've been thinking about your work. I wondered whether you have come across Sean Dower on your travels? He's someone I think you'd like http://seandower.com/. Just had a solo show at Southard Reid. He deals with the 'problem' of display, hierachy and performance really well. I couldn't help but think you'd enjoy a current visit to the Whitechapel to take a look at Fred Sandback too.

I really like the notion of the 'Do Good' series too. Any more of those in the offing?

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/10650/1/reece-jones-at-triumph-gallery
A great piece here about our very own Wrongcog!

Good work, mate. Hope you sell lots of work for good prices and your fame rightly grows!

[strike]I want to enter something for the jerwood drawing comp and it seems the standard readymade frames only go up to 70x100cm, I need 85x125cm and it's a bit late for getting something custom made (submission is this fri/sat). Any bright ideas?
Sorry for cross-posting from Any questions, but feeling a bit panicky... considering a DIY effort but my skills aren't all that.[/strike]
found a bargain