Comments for The Medium of contemporary arts

Comment on Humanimals (2010) and other works – Spike Dennis by Sp:ke Dennis

Sp:ke Dennis — Wed, 04 May 2011 15:42:00 +0000

Thank ewe very much indeed for the feature! I’m glad my drawings tickled your fancy enough to find out a little more about my work! =]

Comment on Ragtime (1993) – Mauricio Kagel – Part 2 of Hudderfield Festival 2010 Features by meredith

meredith — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:44:25 +0000

Really like this piece! Great music.

Comment on Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival 2010 by Simon Pratt

Simon Pratt — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:30:30 +0000

Gabriel – your blog looks very interesting. It may well be useful to some of the people who visit this site that are involved in music/sound.

Why don’t you create a profile on this site so people who visit this site can find you?

Simon

Comment on Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival 2010 by Gabriel

Gabriel — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:58:49 +0000

I thought you might be interested in a new blog that shares and explores conceptual algorithmic music and the way it created through multi-able resources such as research papers, the software and The Musical compositions

Thanks Gabriel

Comment on Turner Prize for Contemporary Art 2010 – The Nominees by meredith

meredith — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:16:16 +0000

I don’t think that any of the nominees really make much of an impact.

Philipsz really doesn’t appeal to me. I can’t see the interest in someone singing a traditional song, even if it is broadcast from under a bridge!

I also find the addition of sensationalist titles to essentially banal paintings that Dalwood employs to be a bit of a cheap trick, but then that’s just me…

Otolith is just a bit too pretentious for me so my money is on de la Cruz.

Comment on Turner Prize for Contemporary Art 2010 – The Nominees by Simon Pratt

Simon Pratt — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:09:07 +0000

I definitely agree with roachalicious that evoking a response is a role that the arts can play. In fact, in my view, some art actually aims to produce responses that may be deemed negative (although paradoxically, if that is their aim and they have been successful, the artist may well view the response as a positive one!).

In which case, you could argue that art which aims to elicit a strong response but which fails to do so is a poor piece of art. However, this can only hold true if that is the artist’s aim and I certainly don’t know if that is the case with any of the nominees for this year’s Turner Prize – only they know that for sure.

This line of thinking does beg the question about whether art HAS to evoke a strong response and we could be here for days on that one!

Comment on Turner Prize for Contemporary Art 2010 – The Nominees by roathalicious

roathalicious — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:26:50 +0000

‘Good’ art should ultimately be about engaging an audience – after all, there’s little point in creating something that’s not going to be seen/heard/experienced. The Turner Prize is of course controversial, but anything that gets people talking about art in its myriad forms is surely a positive thing, whether the art concerned is deemed to be a work of genius or a pile of old tat.

For me, Phillipz is the stand-out artist in this shortlist with her exciting and innovative work. Otolith, though intelligent and thought-provoking, somehow leaves me cold. Dalwood paints pictures that I’d gladly hang in my home (but does it meet the Turner Prize brief if I want to display one of his paintings on my dining room wall?). Unfortunately de la Cruz isn’t my cup of tea at all.

These are all just my (condensed) opinions – I’m not an art critic and I’m sure plenty of people out there can provide a superior critique. I’d simply argue the mere fact that the work of these artists has evoked a response means they’ve fulfilled the brief of engaging me as a member of the audience, regardless of whether or not I ‘like’ them. That’s a good thing for the arts as far as I’m concerned.

I’m backing Phillipz for the prize. Which doubtless means she won’t win it.