Lucy Archer

Wednesday Film Debates/Talks

Are art schools bad at making good artists?

There were several varied opinions on this matter. However, I believe this statement is untrue. Like many subjects/jobs, you can’t dive in at level 1 and expect to be great at it. Art schools are key in teaching young artists the language of the subject, how other artists think and how to think themselves as an artist. Skills could be picked up without an art school, however, you then miss out on the experience from the tutors and the experimentation by observing your fellow student’s work. Overall, art schools are not bad at making good artists.

You don’t need great skill to be a great artist

In my opinion, great skill certainly helps someone to become a great artist; however it is not as important these days as it was several hundred years ago. For example, artists in the Renaissance period strived for perfection in their paintings (see essay ‘Art and Anatomy – Obsession with Perfection), and to achieve that perfection, they would need great skill. However, in more modern, contemporary art, there is less focus on the artwork itself, rather what the artist is telling the viewer through the art, therefore there is less need for skill to become a great artist.

Gregor Schneider

Gregor Schneider appears to make neither sculptures nor instillations, but rooms. His most famous piece, ‘House UR’ is actually his own home. He has created an experience which people can explore, but only when it gets dark. Because of how the house is, with door less and windowless rooms, other unnerving things, and that you can only visit at night, must make visitors very uncomfortable in my opinion. However, when some German people were interviewed about the house, they seemed to find it not scary, but relatable, one woman described her floor as being similar to one of Schneider’s rooms. His work seems to apply the ideas of minimalists and their obsessions with 2-D painting and industrial objects, to his rooms. I’m honestly not keen on his work but I like how he goes out and saves things from being destroyed, like doors or panels and things.

Does art need to be beautiful?

I think this question is absurd. Everyone’s opinions of what beauty is will be different, therefore it wither makes everything beautiful, or nothing beautiful. Also, art might not need to be ‘beautiful’ for people to enjoy it. Modern art doesn’t rely on ‘beauty’ like perhaps artists in the Renaissance would have. Capturing the ‘perfect’ piece of art was the most important thing; therefore it would have to be ‘beautiful’ in their eyes. Whereas now, the term ‘beautiful’ when it comes to art, has become very loose, therefore it’s hard to describe a piece of art as beautiful, without starting a debate.

Der Lauf Der Dinge by Fisher and Vice 1990

This art film documents a kinetic sculpture work, which extends the definition of sculpture. I think this piece certainly has a different feeling to it, as it is being called a sculpture, however you aren’t seeing this sculpture in person; the film gives it a different dynamic. It perhaps shows a journey of some kind, with the object constantly travelling forwards in some way or another. The movements were almost like a chain reaction, allowing the audience to think about who much science and maths went into creating this train of objects move forwards without fault. All the equipment was made up of everyday items, for example, balloons, candles, tyres, ladders etc. perhaps to build up anticipation and increase excitement, the artists sometimes made it look as if the chain had been broken, so you found yourself almost encouraging the movement to continue, as it had gotten so far. It certainly makes me wonder the amount to time and effort was put into this to make it 30 minutes long. I found that when the object when moving quickly, time moved quicker, but when the pace slowed down, time did too.

DIAL HISTORY

I really didn’t understand why this film was being shown to us on a fine art course. The only creative aspect this film referred to was writers, and how they engineer death in their plots. The only link between that and the film about terrorism was death. I feel that it is very insensitive and inappropriate to call horrible events like the ones shown, art. It sounded like the person who wrote this was annoyed by terrorists, not for causing fear, destruction and death, but for stealing a writer’s purpose, ‘invading human consciousness’.