Clang. A Self Portrait

[Minoxman]

I think as photographers we must go beyond just taking pretty photos. Think of it this way, our beautiful photographs of sunsets and bugs and flowers and landscapes are about prettiness, which is very similar to those pretty landscapes and still lifes of fruits painted by artists in the past. Or those chinese paintings of koi. Is there anything that we're doing that hasn't already been done to death? Is there something deeper to what we're doing than just capturing a documentary picture that anyone could have taken? Do we have anything to say through our work?

How do you know they aren't trying to say something? And how do you know JC was trying to say something if he didn't register to type?
So a few shots of people in the back has depth but a shot of the sunset is shallow? I have shot people from the back since day 1, but you won't hear my concept until I have made it big.

 

[VincentLin]

What's so great about venturing abroad? Singapore not good enough for you? Sour grapes over an exhibition that basically sucked? I think more people need to move out of SIngapore and suck it up elsewhere.
There is a difference between saying JC is crap and saying his exhibited work recently crap. I said his exhibited works are crap. Not JC.
Time to migrate bigshot.

Well, it seems that his work is well recevied overseas. The fame and fortune that brings him overseas is definitely of a much higher scale compared to what he might get in Singapore. Good for him lor.

 

[mattlock]

How do you know they aren't trying to say something? And how do you know JC was trying to say something if he didn't register to type?
So a few shots of people in the back has depth but a shot of the sunset is shallow? I have shot people from the back since day 1, but you won't hear my concept until I have made it big.

You have shot people from the back but you never had a concept of shooting people from the back, never followed through with a dedicated idea and reason for shooting people from the back
If you had a concept and had a thread of thought running through and had bothered explaining it I'm sure people would actually give you the benefit of a doubt that you actually had some thought in your work.
Hell I'm sure lots of people are trying to say something. Too bad they aren't telling anyone whether they're trying to say anything, apart from what lens and filters they use.

look, the discussion now is not just the physical nature of the work itself, it's also about the questions it raises by John Clang putting up an exhibition with technically "simple" work. everyone has their own opinion on the physical nature of the work of course (be it "it sucks!" or "it works", but you have to agree that the exhibition has been successful in raising debate right?
don't worry, alot of singaporean artists are already moving out of Singapore. it's a sad sad state of things.

and now.
To diss Mondrian and Yves Klein! do you even know the logic behind Yves Klein's work? Do you know the significance of that blue? the act of patenting that blue was one thing that questioned certain ideas of art, and also that blue was his trademark that he used through his career. and that blue is such an intense beautiful blue! it's not just "oh it's blue". It's hard to do a physical thing such as paint justice on a book page or a computer screen. To the naked eye it is just paint on a canvas. but there's historical significance behind it! so I guess a expensive terracotta figure from the 2nd century in china is not worth it's price, simply because it looks like a cheap knock off from Haw Par Villa?
And Mondrian! it's not just LINES. it's the concepts that he helped push, perhaps you don't realise that Mondrain's work dealt with many ideas that are now taken for granted in layouts in magazines and newspapers. Take a look at a Mondrian painting and take a look at a newspaper layout, you will see the similarities! It may have been squares on a page, but more important than just the colours and squares are the ways the squares interact and create space on a page.

There is a lot of artwork around that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, sometimes a lot of artwork is understood better by certain groups of people, as these artworks deal with issues that these groups of people deal with.
Many architects, fashion designers, art directors, among other groups of people deal with intangible issues like space and emotions and ambiguity, and to the layman who doesn't usually have to deal with these issues it means nothing to them. So I guess consider that art may be very subjective, but it's useful to keep an open mind, because one day when we are more familiar with the ideas that these artists who we dislike are dealing with, we may learn to appreciate them then. It is like the point I raised earlier, about how there have been pictures which I never liked in the past and one day, years later, I realise how good the piece actually is. Or a book that you can't understand at first and later on you realise that it's actually got alot of depth which you couldn't latch on to when you were younger!
I'm not saying all art is so deep, so meaningful, but it's worthwhile giving more benefit of a doubt to "art".

Look, many of these artists can do technically superb works. Picasso started off doing realistic works. Mondrian was known for his beautiful Dutch landscapes. Why do these artists decide to do something else which seems like something anyone else can do? Maybe perhaps they have gotten over thinking about technicalities and actually expressing what they feel needs to be expressed in whatever form it takes, not necessarily the most 'cheem' or most technically difficult method.
There are so many things you can't judge about art just by looking at a pricetag and looking at the difficulty level of a painting.

 

[The_Cheat]

I really don't quite understand focus of this thread. :dunno:

My personal take on JC's work : I think he's honest about his feelings.

JC's current exhibition is more "feelings" than "technical supermacy". I'm responsive to "emotive" and "feeling" photos/paintings/artworks than "technically excellent" photos/paintings/artworks.

His explanation on "NYC Ghost" made me think about my feelings when the 9-11 disaster struck.

I was just sitting in my camp's office and watching the news on a tv one of my officers brought down from his bunk. The whole group of us ten (poor NSFs - men and officers) were just that - glued to the screen (during a normal work day). We felt scared and depressed.

6 hours later. My unit was on red alert.

See? JC is successful in my opinion. He made me think and reflect.

Anyway, enough of rambling.

Show me a superb technical photo and an horribly taken "emotional" photo - I will tend to remember the "emotional" one.

Technically excellent photos are dime a dozen. But have you (i guess in a general way) come up with something that can really communicate with an audience? If your artwork can communicate with someone else, I say that you are successful.

My 2 cents.

I'm in total agreement with you on this, VincentLin. His work is definitely one that appeals to one's emotions and to stir up feelings. I personally felt quite disturbed after seeing a number of provocative images in his exhibition. :thumbsup:

I think photography as art may be seen in the same light as paintings. To some, Picasso's painting may be nothing more than just a few strokes of paintbrush, and make no sense at all, but to others who could appreciate and perceive the meanings that Picasso was trying to express, those painting are priceless. That's why even though anyone could paint like Picasso, they can't paint like Picasso can. Confusing? :dunno:

Anyway, I really felt that it's unfair for this thread to criticise JC's works. Just treat it as an artform. If you get it, you'll appreciate it. If you don't, then move on and try out other artform. Even the greatest of all masters may not have be able to create pieces that will appeal to everyone. So people, why don't you let the criticisms rest?

 

[The_Cheat]

You have shot people from the back but you never had a concept of shooting people from the back, never followed through with a dedicated idea and reason for shooting people from the back
If you had a concept and had a thread of thought running through and had bothered explaining it I'm sure people would actually give you the benefit of a doubt that you actually had some thought in your work.
Hell I'm sure lots of people are trying to say something. Too bad they aren't telling anyone whether they're trying to say anything, apart from what lens and filters they use.

look, the discussion now is not just the physical nature of the work itself, it's also about the questions it raises by John Clang putting up an exhibition with technically "simple" work. everyone has their own opinion on the physical nature of the work of course (be it "it sucks!" or "it works", but you have to agree that the exhibition has been successful in raising debate right?
don't worry, alot of singaporean artists are already moving out of Singapore. it's a sad sad state of things.

and now.
To diss Mondrian and Yves Klein! do you even know the logic behind Yves Klein's work? Do you know the significance of that blue? the act of patenting that blue was one thing that questioned certain ideas of art, and also that blue was his trademark that he used through his career. and that blue is such an intense beautiful blue! it's not just "oh it's blue". It's hard to do a physical thing such as paint justice on a book page or a computer screen. To the naked eye it is just paint on a canvas. but there's historical significance behind it! so I guess a expensive terracotta figure from the 2nd century in china is not worth it's price, simply because it looks like a cheap knock off from Haw Par Villa?
And Mondrian! it's not just LINES. it's the concepts that he helped push, perhaps you don't realise that Mondrain's work dealt with many ideas that are now taken for granted in layouts in magazines and newspapers. Take a look at a Mondrian painting and take a look at a newspaper layout, you will see the similarities! It may have been squares on a page, but more important than just the colours and squares are the ways the squares interact and create space on a page.

There is a lot of artwork around that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, sometimes a lot of artwork is understood better by certain groups of people, as these artworks deal with issues that these groups of people deal with.
Many architects, fashion designers, art directors, among other groups of people deal with intangible issues like space and emotions and ambiguity, and to the layman who doesn't usually have to deal with these issues it means nothing to them. So I guess consider that art may be very subjective, but it's useful to keep an open mind, because one day when we are more familiar with the ideas that these artists who we dislike are dealing with, we may learn to appreciate them then. It is like the point I raised earlier, about how there have been pictures which I never liked in the past and one day, years later, I realise how good the piece actually is. Or a book that you can't understand at first and later on you realise that it's actually got alot of depth which you couldn't latch on to when you were younger!
I'm not saying all art is so deep, so meaningful, but it's worthwhile giving more benefit of a doubt to "art".

Look, many of these artists can do technically superb works. Picasso started off doing realistic works. Mondrian was known for his beautiful Dutch landscapes. Why do these artists decide to do something else which seems like something anyone else can do? Maybe perhaps they have gotten over thinking about technicalities and actually expressing what they feel needs to be expressed in whatever form it takes, not necessarily the most 'cheem' or most technically difficult method.
There are so many things you can't judge about art just by looking at a pricetag and looking at the difficulty level of a painting.

Thumbs up for mattlock for such an elaborate explanation! :thumbsup:

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

You have shot people from the back but you never had a concept of shooting people from the back, never followed through with a dedicated idea and reason for shooting people from the back
If you had a concept and had a thread of thought running through and had bothered explaining it I'm sure people would actually give you the benefit of a doubt that you actually had some thought in your work.
Hell I'm sure lots of people are trying to say something. Too bad they aren't telling anyone whether they're trying to say anything, apart from what lens and filters they use.

look, the discussion now is not just the physical nature of the work itself, it's also about the questions it raises by John Clang putting up an exhibition with technically "simple" work. everyone has their own opinion on the physical nature of the work of course (be it "it sucks!" or "it works", but you have to agree that the exhibition has been successful in raising debate right?
don't worry, alot of singaporean artists are already moving out of Singapore. it's a sad sad state of things.

and now.
To diss Mondrian and Yves Klein! do you even know the logic behind Yves Klein's work? Do you know the significance of that blue? the act of patenting that blue was one thing that questioned certain ideas of art, and also that blue was his trademark that he used through his career. and that blue is such an intense beautiful blue! it's not just "oh it's blue". It's hard to do a physical thing such as paint justice on a book page or a computer screen. To the naked eye it is just paint on a canvas. but there's historical significance behind it! so I guess a expensive terracotta figure from the 2nd century in china is not worth it's price, simply because it looks like a cheap knock off from Haw Par Villa?
And Mondrian! it's not just LINES. it's the concepts that he helped push, perhaps you don't realise that Mondrain's work dealt with many ideas that are now taken for granted in layouts in magazines and newspapers. Take a look at a Mondrian painting and take a look at a newspaper layout, you will see the similarities! It may have been squares on a page, but more important than just the colours and squares are the ways the squares interact and create space on a page.

There is a lot of artwork around that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, sometimes a lot of artwork is understood better by certain groups of people, as these artworks deal with issues that these groups of people deal with.
Many architects, fashion designers, art directors, among other groups of people deal with intangible issues like space and emotions and ambiguity, and to the layman who doesn't usually have to deal with these issues it means nothing to them. So I guess consider that art may be very subjective, but it's useful to keep an open mind, because one day when we are more familiar with the ideas that these artists who we dislike are dealing with, we may learn to appreciate them then. It is like the point I raised earlier, about how there have been pictures which I never liked in the past and one day, years later, I realise how good the piece actually is. Or a book that you can't understand at first and later on you realise that it's actually got alot of depth which you couldn't latch on to when you were younger!
I'm not saying all art is so deep, so meaningful, but it's worthwhile giving more benefit of a doubt to "art".

Look, many of these artists can do technically superb works. Picasso started off doing realistic works. Mondrian was known for his beautiful Dutch landscapes. Why do these artists decide to do something else which seems like something anyone else can do? Maybe perhaps they have gotten over thinking about technicalities and actually expressing what they feel needs to be expressed in whatever form it takes, not necessarily the most 'cheem' or most technically difficult method.
There are so many things you can't judge about art just by looking at a pricetag and looking at the difficulty level of a painting.

:thumbsup: i'm in total agreement here!

 

[ant]

Whether his work is good or bad, at least he make it.
Did u? I don't.

I respect him and I'm proud of him being a Singaporean.

Why can't we give him the support as he is one of us.

Who are we to judge?

:think:

 

[wakeup]

How do you know they aren't trying to say something? And how do you know JC was trying to say something if he didn't register to type?
So a few shots of people in the back has depth but a shot of the sunset is shallow? I have shot people from the back since day 1, but you won't hear my concept until I have made it big.

To Minoxman

After looking at the thread, I can’t help to feel that you bear a personal grudge against JC. Did he at some point stepped on your tail? I must say your opinion towards his work (mediocre, passable, crap,…) is a total disrespect to an artist who just wants to share his work.

Pls show us some of your work so that we can admire them. Maybe you can stage an exhibition and start earning millions. I would love to compare your version of ‘backs’ with his.


:nono:

 

[wakeup]

Isn't the character the guy who is the cobbler working under the walkway beside the Somerset MRT carpark by the Specialist Center. I think there is quite a resemblance.

Have anyone try to think why JC wants exhibit those series of work instead of ‘Singapore Girls’ or ‘Hands’ which received some good response in this forum?

Has anyone even realized that the exhibit focused on one guy called ‘Beon’, even though the exhibition is called ‘Clang. A Self Portrait’.

Has anyone paid any attention to that at all, instead of just trying to find some technicality perfection from the images?

 

[Pro Image]

You have shot people from the back but you never had a concept of shooting people from the back, never followed through with a dedicated idea and reason for shooting people from the back
If you had a concept and had a thread of thought running through and had bothered explaining it I'm sure people would actually give you the benefit of a doubt that you actually had some thought in your work.
Hell I'm sure lots of people are trying to say something. Too bad they aren't telling anyone whether they're trying to say anything, apart from what lens and filters they use.

look, the discussion now is not just the physical nature of the work itself, it's also about the questions it raises by John Clang putting up an exhibition with technically "simple" work. everyone has their own opinion on the physical nature of the work of course (be it "it sucks!" or "it works", but you have to agree that the exhibition has been successful in raising debate right?
don't worry, alot of singaporean artists are already moving out of Singapore. it's a sad sad state of things.

and now.
To diss Mondrian and Yves Klein! do you even know the logic behind Yves Klein's work? Do you know the significance of that blue? the act of patenting that blue was one thing that questioned certain ideas of art, and also that blue was his trademark that he used through his career. and that blue is such an intense beautiful blue! it's not just "oh it's blue". It's hard to do a physical thing such as paint justice on a book page or a computer screen. To the naked eye it is just paint on a canvas. but there's historical significance behind it! so I guess a expensive terracotta figure from the 2nd century in china is not worth it's price, simply because it looks like a cheap knock off from Haw Par Villa?
And Mondrian! it's not just LINES. it's the concepts that he helped push, perhaps you don't realise that Mondrain's work dealt with many ideas that are now taken for granted in layouts in magazines and newspapers. Take a look at a Mondrian painting and take a look at a newspaper layout, you will see the similarities! It may have been squares on a page, but more important than just the colours and squares are the ways the squares interact and create space on a page.

There is a lot of artwork around that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, sometimes a lot of artwork is understood better by certain groups of people, as these artworks deal with issues that these groups of people deal with.
Many architects, fashion designers, art directors, among other groups of people deal with intangible issues like space and emotions and ambiguity, and to the layman who doesn't usually have to deal with these issues it means nothing to them. So I guess consider that art may be very subjective, but it's useful to keep an open mind, because one day when we are more familiar with the ideas that these artists who we dislike are dealing with, we may learn to appreciate them then. It is like the point I raised earlier, about how there have been pictures which I never liked in the past and one day, years later, I realise how good the piece actually is. Or a book that you can't understand at first and later on you realise that it's actually got alot of depth which you couldn't latch on to when you were younger!
I'm not saying all art is so deep, so meaningful, but it's worthwhile giving more benefit of a doubt to "art".

Look, many of these artists can do technically superb works. Picasso started off doing realistic works. Mondrian was known for his beautiful Dutch landscapes. Why do these artists decide to do something else which seems like something anyone else can do? Maybe perhaps they have gotten over thinking about technicalities and actually expressing what they feel needs to be expressed in whatever form it takes, not necessarily the most 'cheem' or most technically difficult method.
There are so many things you can't judge about art just by looking at a pricetag and looking at the difficulty level of a painting.

Ladies and gentlemen let's applaud..... :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[anavrin]

Have anyone try to think why JC wants exhibit those series of work instead of ‘Singapore Girls’ or ‘Hands’ which received some good response in this forum?

Has anyone even realized that the exhibit focused on one guy called ‘Beon’, even though the exhibition is called ‘Clang. A Self Portrait’.

Has anyone paid any attention to that at all, instead of just trying to find some technicality perfection from the images?

True true..... :think:

 

[thwl]

I value Clang and his work... but for now, the Singapore audience probably like:

- caucasian models (not asian ones... asian + acne scars is definitely a no-no for the common Singaporean! You may be perceived as unprofessional if you use asian models, especially those with acne scars)

- refreshing/exotic locations (not common traffic junctions, mrt entrances/exits and neighbourhood areas... you may be perceived as someone with a cheap digital camera or handphone cam walking around snapping cheap photos to put up for exhibition... you may even invoke jealousy if you are able to put up such 'everybody's photo album' photos in the Esplanade... Singaporeans will think it's possible for them to do it too and they don't treasure you! Perhaps shooting a hot caucasian supermodel in common locations is better... you know, the paradox of it all - new entities in our boring neighbourhood and they will ponder how did you get the hot model to pose for you the first place!)

John Clang, I admire your courage for putting up 'Clang. A Self Portrait' for exhibition in the Esplanade. This kind of exhibition is not what we usually see in Singapore and I truely believe that you hardly made any money from it... thanks for letting me know that my art, too, will not be well-received by the Singaporean crowd. I have to try to make it big outside our small country first...

Anyway, art is not about making money (money is just a bonus), but invoking feelings and provoking reactions (even negative ones) from the human race! Clang have succeeded, well done! :thumbsup:

 

[Minoxman]

Back to the circle and the dot thing. Personal playgrounds to self express via exhibitions of such. Objectivity thrown out the window, never discussed, never bothered. We are not discussing about technically superior pictures here, but just why is some famous artists's back shots different from anyone of ours? The reason I see is because that artist is so and so and he has something to say. He exhibited to bring contemporary art to the commoners. No one can so far say how different is that artist's work from anyone here. The presumption of superiority is based on his success elsewhere.
My niece has something to say too. Please open your big fat eyes and think.

 

[Minoxman]

You have shot people from the back but you never had a concept of shooting people from the back, never followed through with a dedicated idea and reason for shooting people from the back
If you had a concept and had a thread of thought running through and had bothered explaining it I'm sure people would actually give you the benefit of a doubt that you actually had some thought in your work.
Hell I'm sure lots of people are trying to say something. Too bad they aren't telling anyone whether they're trying to say anything, apart from what lens and filters they use.

look, the discussion now is not just the physical nature of the work itself, it's also about the questions it raises by John Clang putting up an exhibition with technically "simple" work. everyone has their own opinion on the physical nature of the work of course (be it "it sucks!" or "it works", but you have to agree that the exhibition has been successful in raising debate right?
don't worry, alot of singaporean artists are already moving out of Singapore. it's a sad sad state of things.

and now.
To diss Mondrian and Yves Klein! do you even know the logic behind Yves Klein's work? Do you know the significance of that blue? the act of patenting that blue was one thing that questioned certain ideas of art, and also that blue was his trademark that he used through his career. and that blue is such an intense beautiful blue! it's not just "oh it's blue". It's hard to do a physical thing such as paint justice on a book page or a computer screen. To the naked eye it is just paint on a canvas. but there's historical significance behind it! so I guess a expensive terracotta figure from the 2nd century in china is not worth it's price, simply because it looks like a cheap knock off from Haw Par Villa?
And Mondrian! it's not just LINES. it's the concepts that he helped push, perhaps you don't realise that Mondrain's work dealt with many ideas that are now taken for granted in layouts in magazines and newspapers. Take a look at a Mondrian painting and take a look at a newspaper layout, you will see the similarities! It may have been squares on a page, but more important than just the colours and squares are the ways the squares interact and create space on a page.

There is a lot of artwork around that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, sometimes a lot of artwork is understood better by certain groups of people, as these artworks deal with issues that these groups of people deal with.
Many architects, fashion designers, art directors, among other groups of people deal with intangible issues like space and emotions and ambiguity, and to the layman who doesn't usually have to deal with these issues it means nothing to them. So I guess consider that art may be very subjective, but it's useful to keep an open mind, because one day when we are more familiar with the ideas that these artists who we dislike are dealing with, we may learn to appreciate them then. It is like the point I raised earlier, about how there have been pictures which I never liked in the past and one day, years later, I realise how good the piece actually is. Or a book that you can't understand at first and later on you realise that it's actually got alot of depth which you couldn't latch on to when you were younger!
I'm not saying all art is so deep, so meaningful, but it's worthwhile giving more benefit of a doubt to "art".

Look, many of these artists can do technically superb works. Picasso started off doing realistic works. Mondrian was known for his beautiful Dutch landscapes. Why do these artists decide to do something else which seems like something anyone else can do? Maybe perhaps they have gotten over thinking about technicalities and actually expressing what they feel needs to be expressed in whatever form it takes, not necessarily the most 'cheem' or most technically difficult method.
There are so many things you can't judge about art just by looking at a pricetag and looking at the difficulty level of a painting.

How do you know I didn't have a concept? Based on what?
It's because I didn't tell you my concepts, like JC has told us. Personal concepts aren't rocket science. My niece has her concepts too. Just because she hasn't shot high fashion don't mean she has any lesser thinking.

 

[Minoxman]

In conclusion, JC has his rights to exhibits what he wants. I am of the thinking that just because he is who he is, doesn't make this particular exhibition any different from what my niece can do, conceptually or technically.
Or what any of us can do. There is a difference than saying I hate JC as a person or artist. Why are most people confusing these 2 issues?
Picasso's circle and dot and my niece's circle and dot could be the same pictorially. But of cause you'll say Picasso has a better concept? Right.

 

[Minoxman]

To Minoxman

After looking at the thread, I can’t help to feel that you bear a personal grudge against JC. Did he at some point stepped on your tail? I must say your opinion towards his work (mediocre, passable, crap,&#8230 is a total disrespect to an artist who just wants to share his work.

Pls show us some of your work so that we can admire them. Maybe you can stage an exhibition and start earning millions. I would love to compare your version of ‘backs’ with his.


:nono:

Who's John Clang? He could be XXX and I would still say the same things about how art is perceived by the masses.

 

[mattlock]

In conclusion, JC has his rights to exhibits what he wants. I am of the thinking that just because he is who he is, doesn't make this particular exhibition any different from what my niece can do, conceptually or technically.
Or what any of us can do. There is a difference than saying I hate JC as a person or artist. Why are most people confusing these 2 issues?
Picasso's circle and dot and my niece's circle and dot could be the same pictorially. But of cause you'll say Picasso has a better concept? Right.

I don't think it's about you hating john clang, I don't think anyone really cares about that. To you all you see is a picture. you refuse to go beyond the "what you see is what it is" sort of mentality. Which has its good points too of course, sometimes there are people who are so full of ****. I've seen a lot of that kind of work. People who don't have any skill so they cop out by giving a ludicrous concept to their simple work.

much of art now is beyond just a pictorial mentality. Do you bother to question the work?

I already stated why his work is different from anyone else here.
But you're right about something, the presumption of superiority is based on his success elsewhere. As in, he has proven his technical worth in other works already, so the presumption now is that by shooting these seemingly snapshots kind of images he is trying to say something, something deeper than just shots of the backs of people as you simply believe they are. Your niece on the other hand has never proven anything of herself. John Clang is not some two bit fraud who can't take a photo and decided to give a bullshit concept to his work because he couldn't take a good photo. You've seen his other work. you should know. If Picasso was to paint a dot and give a concept, people would listen because Picasso had proven himself enough times for people to take him seriously if he did something seemingly simple.

The pictoral representation is just an aspect of many artworks. The intention behind an artwork plays an important part too. Yves Klein's blue is not just about a canvas painted blue. Duchamp's urinal is not just a urinal. The intention and concept of a work makes a difference, the gigantic difference between your niece's dot and picasso's dot.

So you didn't think that the work proved his point well enough because it didn't affect you, and I'm sure there are people who will back you up. But I think it's too simplistic to compare him and your niece, simply because TECHNICALLY it's "simple" to pull off. That's quite insulting to an artist.

But anyone how about the BeOn series? what did you think of that? conceptually and technically? seems like the series of the backs seem to have made the most uproar.

 

[Minoxman]

I think you pay too much emphasis to the "grade of concepts". As in, so and so's concept is superior or deeper than so and so's. In esscence, my niece's dot is inferior to Picasso's because Pica has more to say about that dot than my niece. But Pica's concept may mean **** to my niece's world of imagination because it may not touch her soul. Likewise, JC's concept may mean a lot to you but my point is exactly that it may mean **** to many others, and so why should my niece's concept be any inferior to anyone's?

JC or Picasso or my niece are all the same, conceptually in their own minds. Different, but the same. But the notion that JC was given the benefit of the doubt in his exhibition because of who he is, is troubling. It means people like my niece won;t have a chance to make the million.

 

[Minoxman]

I personally don't think art can be questioned. Most of it is judged via conventional processes e.g compositions, colour, tones grain, etc. These selective methods in itself can be boring or controversial.
However, I do think we can question ourselves why we like or not like certain art. There must be a certain objectivity within us. If you are swayed by the wolf pack and not start thinking, then everything is good and everything is bad.
I think I applied my thinking into JC's exhibition work. I still feel they are mediocre by what I deemed good art. Others are free to feel differently because art is equal but subjective at the same time.

 

[CaeSiuM]

Whatever we feel about JC's work, let it not be personal. I think enough have been said and I'm in favour of locking this thread before the argument gets worse.