Is Art Pain?

by paul o toole Thu Apr 29, 2010 22:09

The celtic tiger left us with an absurd pile of turd posing as art. This pile, in my view, dosent even come close to the description of entertainment. And dribbling away from this dung heap in the amonia laced piss tricle, are the last vestiges of these imposters, debasing a tradition in which they never belonged in the first place, I hope - Jedward and Celia Aherne..

by Fernandel Fri Apr 30, 2010 04:26

The social conditions in which the writers emerged were bleak and oppressive. They sure were. Poor Patrick Kavanagh lived a life of poverty and died too young. Anthony Cronin was his good friend. They both had great times together, sharing jokes and drinking escapades.

One important politician asked Cronin for advice on how the Irish state could support artists and writers. The result was the creation of Aosdana and pensions for those who were subsisting on low incomes. Another measure was the tax concession for artists and writers. This brought well known people into Ireland, together with their assets. The state also began to increase its expenditure on the arts. Poets and novelists were enabled to get their works published with grants from the Arts Council/An Comhairle Ealaion.

And who was that gold-hearted, pragmatic politician who took advice from Anthony Cronin?
Nobody less than the gold-hearted, pragmatic Charles J. Haughey.

Irish poets should celebrate Haughey in verse. Artists should ennoble him with large canvasses and public sculptures. He took pity on them and saved them from penury.

Haughey was the friend of everybody: a friend of poverty-stricken artists and poets; a friend of the poor (look at the deal he did with Gregory to bring improvements to Dublin Central); and a friend of rich creeps like Ben Dunne who lined his pockets and facilitated Haughey's inspiring lavish lifestyle.

by paul o toole Fri Apr 30, 2010 09:33 pauljotoole at eircom dot net

I hear him laughing now...in hell where he belongs.

Art in its very nature is at its best when born out of struggle and pain. It follows the old rule that 'you never learn anything from doing it right'...Wether it is poetry, song, music, comedy, theatre or impression, art's finest contributors had their bag of troubles, and through this, communicated to the masses and their contribution is recognised. Without these contributions, life on this dull planet would be all the more dull.
Haughey, the forefather of Irish political corruption, done absolutely nothing for art. He certainly brought a level of comfort to ceartain people, or at least created an enviroment so they could 'concentrate on their work' without the burden of paying taxes.
The fact that most artists struggle away at their craft, annonymous in the main to the rest of the world and whos earnings dont even register on the tax radar is a fact. When Bonovox, as he was known back then started palling roung with Gareth Fitzgerald, Haughey simply bought him.
Offering tax relief to 'struggling artists' is a noble idea, and in my view is counter to art itself, but elites-currying the favour of artists in order to preserve their legacy is an ancient tradition unfortunately.
This practice was widespread among the royalty of Europe and Haughey fit that bill better than most at the time, at least in his head.

Art should not be funded by tax breaks in my opinion. Art should struggle, art is struggle, if it is 'aided' then it is falling short of the mark and cannot be concidered art in a pure form. It is already being corrupted by influence of corporatising to a degree that it will not recover from.
Art and artists should be left alone. By its very nature it must be objective...and cannot fulfill that role if it is influenced by the offering of great comfort by political entities such as the Haugheys.
The silence form the art world, given the nature of things at the moment is deafening......are they afraid of loosing their tax free status...??
One of arts' greatest achievments is to challenge the conditions that prevail for thestruggling classes, this cannot be done if the artist in question is beholden to their master....so fuck charlie haughey and the horse he rode in on, and all the mega rick bastards posing as 'artists' who suck at the taxexempt tit he held out to them....

Paul O'Toole, Non Tax Exempt Struggling Artist......

by wryface Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:09

Haughey was a sonofabitch but he was a sonofabitch who did something for artists, poets and novelists. Garret FitzGerald did nothing. He lived in a world of statistical macroeconomics and he wasn't able to do business with Tony Gregory. Gregory took his one and only chance and Charlie the kept man shovelled state funds into Ireland's most neglected urban constituency.

No state funding for the arts? You think state funding 'buys' the silence of artists and writers? You think the state should pull the rug on Aosdana and Comhairle Ealaion? You think that'll get the artists and writers kicking and screaming about social injustice?That they'll chain themselves to the railings outside Leinster House?

Art thrived in the 13th and 14th and 15th centuries in Florence and other citiy states when the rich Medicis endowed the arts and shovelled funds towards Leonardo and others. Haughey was a machiavellian prince who remembered some lessons from Florence. Like the Medicis he had a taste for fine clothing, like mohair suits and Charvet tailored suits. Gregory wouldn't have been seen dead wearing a silk tie.

I say to today's artists and writers: take the state money and follow your artistic lights.

by pot Sat May 01, 2010 12:26

''You think state funding 'buys' the silence of artists and writers? ''.... Yes.

''You think the state should pull the rug on Aosdana and Comhairle Ealaion?'' .....yes

You think that'll get the artists and writers kicking and screaming about social injustice?....Donno...dont care

That they'll chain themselves to the railings outside Leinster House?....Dono...dont care

You are right about Haughey being a 'sonofabitch'..... Do care....

Art in its naked form should be preserved, and not contaminated with government interventions with the offer of comfort. A comfort that is only avaliable to the mega rich because as I said in my first post that most artists wont even register on the tax radar.
Of course 'classic' art has been preserved for the future generations,..... funded, protected, and acceptable to the elite, and everyone pays homage today.
What will the future say, or its people think about our times now, and the 'art' that is funded, supported and adored by the media, press and the governments. There was never a case to support art/artists and there never should be, especially in these times.....

by Fred Johnston Sat May 01, 2010 13:38 fred.johnston at rocketmail dot com 087.2178138

Good to see someone going with this at last. I am myself a writer and believe that the world of the arts in Ireland has been left alone by decent criticism and scrutiny for far too long. First of all, the world of Behan, Kavanagh, Myles na gCopaleen was interesting, occasionally produced talent, but was also culturally incestuous, drunken and self-destructive. In my youth I attached a certain romance to it. But I see now that there was little attractive about it. Anthony Cronin for a long time inspired young artists of the Left, myself included, with his 'Viewpoint' column in The Irish Times and there was undoubtedly a feeling that he had let us down when he connected up with Haughey and, with some others, created Aosdána, membership of which then became, it seemed, the sole goal of every artist in the State, with some honourable exceptions.

But membership required - demanded - consensus, and an artist soon learned that politics was out of bounds in Aosdána. The funders, the Arts Council, were by their nature as a State body conservative and radically opposed to dissent or change; indeed, one might be, as I have discovered, punished for introducing dissent into any portion of the arts over which the Council claimed financial reign. Thus membership of Aosdána became (Cardinal Richelieu would have smiled!) a place where political force and ideology went to die. Now and then there were disputes; nothing prevented, however, the disgraceful election of the late Francis Stuart to the post of 'tSaoi,' though he had written for Nazi radio and broadcast for it. Aosdána also provided a rich growing plot for small factions, egos, coteries self-protecting and self-interested groupings. Where an academy had been created which might have been a political force for good and for openness, we ended up with a rather weak and tooth-pulled pool of creative timidity.

It amazes me that no one seems to consider that the arts can be every bit as wink-and-nod, as sleight-of-hand, incompetently run, who-you-know, and in some cases openly exclusive as the tightest gang of developers and bankers. The Arts Council DO instruct organisations they fund (such as the Cúirt festival in Galway) on how they should develop and organise, though the Council often deny that they interfere with the policies of their 'clients.' The Arts Council offers no explanations as to how funding decisions can remove altogether or diminish a grant from a long-standing magazine or group and at the same alot five-figure sums to a magazine (say) that has only a few years behind it. The arts world - and I include literature - is only as useful as what it actually does, and where I have always maintained that artists should be actively engaged with politics and society around them bodies such as the Arts Council (which is, after all, the State) do not take kindly to suggestions that the arts and society and politics have something to talk about. I do not think it is useful altogether to remove State subsidy of the Arts, but it should be understood that the State, through the Council, will diminish the power of an artist or arts' organisation to engage as freely with politics or the world and will chastise the individual or group who does not rein himself in and, frankly, shut up. It is the view of the Arts Council that (1) regional arts officers make arts' policy in a given region, and that (2) certain heavily-funded organisations make their running in their particular arts' field - for instance, Poetry Ireland look after poetry policy and dissemination of information and no one else is entitled to do so.

An overhaul of how the Arts Council works in the real world of politics and society and in which artists and writers also strive to work is long overdue. But who will dare initiate it? Even more ominously, there is every chance that this posting will be copied and sent anonymously to the Arts Council as proof that either I or the group with which I work is unworthy of funding because of my views. This has been done before now, and the Council were deeply displeased to see that I had written letters to papers critical of the Arts in Galway. Whether this displeasure resolved itself into the inevitable removal of a Programme Grant is a moot point which the Council would dispute; but that the Council should for a second consider anonymously-forwarded malicious information is in itself a cause for grave concern. They say, it seems, that safeguards have now been introduced - whatever that means. But the practice of taking seriously anonymous mails or pseudonymous mails is a very unattractive one.

by Wally B Sat May 01, 2010 17:26

I enjoyed Paddy Hackett's short response to Anthony Cronin's well-known literary reminiscence, Dead as Doornails, which I think can profitably be read together with John Ryan's memoir of the same dreary period, Remembering where we stood. (Ryan, for those who don't know, was head barman (proprietor?) of McDaid's pub off Grafton Street where Brendan Behan, Patrick Kavanagh, Cronin and other literary people met, drank, debated, fought and puked in the toilet or outside the door in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s onwards.) Like Fred Johnston I would look sternly through any romantic tint and see behind the excessive boozing a despair at the inertia of Irish society during those times.

Yes, art has emerged from pain, loss, 'alienation' and anger at injustice in many societies; but art (in which I include literature) has also emerged in other, more settled societies. The artist as angry wry bohemian rebelling individualistically against social hypocrisy seems to have been created by the romantic movement of the early 19th century. I grant that great artists laboured away, often penniless and unsung, in many European societies and today they are remembered in galleries and continuous reprints of their books. But other artists were not bohemian, not eccentric, not voluntary or involuntary social outcasts.

I would see the chequebook attitudes of contemporary Irish literary figures as a reaction to the drunken impoverishment of their predecessors several decades ago. Many contemporary Irish writers wince with embarrassment at the thought of Brendan Behan's tottering escapades and pseudo-books edited and published posthumously. [Brendan Behan's New York/Hold your hour and have another]

I think Irish society was mediocre and failing between the end of the civil war and the economic planning of Sean Lemass. Sam Beckett had famously described cattle dealers of the 30s as not giving a fart through their corduroys about literature and the arts - and such comments were often applied by other writers to the ruling politicians and civil servants. Cronin saw what this mediocrity had done physically to Kavanagh and he didn't want it to happen to future artists. I suppose he saw Haughey's request for advice as a golden opportunity to to get some real state support for the arts. Was it a sellout? Against the historical background of state neglect I would say Cronin was being realistic and compassionate. Incidentally, I think that Cronin should be considered as a stronger poet than novelist. He published some acerbic essays too.

When you institutionalise professions (think of some trades unions, think of the Church etc.) you create power, career ladders, social prestige and vested interest. I haven't observed Aosdana or the Comhairle Ealaion policies methodically enough to judge their impact on artists' integrity or disposition to engage with society's disfunctions. Fred and Paddy above speak from their positions as concerned writers and should have their concerns addressed. Continue the discussion gentlemen.

by Paul O'Toole Sun May 02, 2010 01:59

Padraic O'Chonaire, poet, naturist and storyteller died, and his sole posessions were a clay pipe, some tobacco and an apple. He diddnt hold out his hand for alms to provide himself with comfort while he carried on with his craft. He was self sustaining, loved by the people of the Aran Islands, west Clare and South Galway for giving voice to their lives and as art should do, validate their existence. His work is perennial.

Funding art through controlled government schemes who exercise perogative is a dangerous game. The notion is noble like i said earlier. The problem is exactly as I have stated and the proof is there in the very mention of Haugheys name in this discussion.
Even if Haugheys motives were honourable I still would not support this funding/ tax break credited to him. Like the notion that Charlie 'gave' us (old folk) free travel. Youd swear he bought the busses out of his own money, he diddnt, they were our busses to begin with.
Un fortunately for anyone who supports Haughey, as in this thread, eyes can remain closed in the face of a glaring truth. Any man who robs his friends collection fund to have a transplant, or insists Catholic Ireland uses the rythym method for contraception, while he uses illegal rubber while having an affair with a supreme court Judges wife as her husband is sitting on a tribunal into the deaths (manslaughter) of 48 of his constituents by his business associates, or insists the minister for finance-Bertie Aherne-- pre-signs up to 1500 blank checques from our taxes, had frequent meetings with the Bilderbergs... but yet some people think his interest in art was uncorrupted..... He bought silence from those whom should be in a position to criticize him. At his funeral service the so called 'artists' eulogised him to the point of sainthood..... Hitler was also a patron of the arts...do you think his motives were uncontaminated also.???

This world and every part of it is incapable of avoiding corruption, art at least should be left alone.

by Fred Johnston Sun May 02, 2010 02:17

Wally B. gives pause for thought. But if I may correct . . .John Ryan, whom I knew briefly, was proprietor of The Bailey public house off Grafton Street and had nothing to do with McDaid's in Harry Street.

by Philistine - . Sun May 02, 2010 09:51

As usual the Arts crowd expend enormous energies spouting about how cruel the world is to them.
Any chance they might produce some actual art or literature?

by Wally B Sun May 02, 2010 11:14

Ah yes, Fred, I got the pub wrong when alluding to John Ryan (d. 1992) the author of the literary memoir, Remembering where we stood. What a colourful, influential and accomplished character he was, as summarised by Wikipedia. He was an artist, publisher, editor, critic, writer and publican. (In Kerry John B. Keane was a playwright and publican.) The Bailey in Dublin has always been a different class of pub. I guess that Ryan with his literary sympathies transcended the class contradictions among the literary pubs.

Link:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ryan_%28Dublin_artist%29

by Taxpayer. Sun May 02, 2010 20:00

"Padraic O'Chonaire, poet, naturist and storyteller died, and his sole posessions were a clay pipe, some tobacco and an apple. He didn't hold out his hand for alms to provide himself with comfort while he carried on with his craft. He was self sustaining."

The modern Galway Arts Crowd have a begging bowl held out.

by Fred Johnston Mon May 03, 2010 12:13

I think that poor Padraic O Conaire, ignored in Galway when he was alive, could barely maintain any sort of life at the end. But I take your point. The dependency of arts' groups on funding in Galway has created 'relevant' figures out of small people and given power to those for whom power and rural social significance are more important than creating or supporting art. Indeed the deep parochiality of it all is quite startling.

by Yates Mon May 03, 2010 13:22

It seems to me the main differences between artists can be likened to the main differences between the kind of animals that "live in the wild", and those that are "domesticated".

The ones that live in the wild can "choose their own food", and, that (I believe) makes them far fitter and healthier -- those of them that "make it" that is..

I once read about the interview that Elvis Presley, a teenager at the time, had when he presented himself for his very first recording session, and which he had managed to save up for (probably over a long period) from the small amount money he had been earning while working as an usher in a small local cinema.

When the middle-aged female receptionist at the recording studio gently pointed out to him that he had forgotton to fill in the part on the application form which asked "Which popular singer do you most sound like?", and offered to do it for him, it seems that a look of surprise came over him, and he then innocently and respectfully answered her with the following:

"I don't sound like nobody else".

============

The trees are in their autumn beauty,
The woodland paths are dry,
Under the October twilight the water
Mirrors a still sky;
Upon the brimming water among the stones
Are nine and fifty swans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Swans_at_Coole

============

by Wally B Tue May 04, 2010 23:01

Art is often a reflection of pain, but if some art is beautiful, celebratory or comical isn't it then a reflection of joyful insight? Some artists and writers have led fulfilling family lives in societies that respected them. Many contemporary Irish artists hold down day jobs as teachers and consultants. They work steadily at their art when offduty. A tiny number take the brave leap into fulltime painting and writing after winning a prize or achieving big sales, but in an overcrowded market daily living is precarious for many in the middle. The buying public is fickle, and some things like movies and opera and drama can rarely break even. Hence state support for the arts is necessary. How public reception of the arts can be enhanced is an interesting challenge. I've heard of a German classical music group that makes strenuous efforts to play lunchtime concerts in factory canteens.

by Paddy Hackett Wed May 05, 2010 10:07 rasherrs at eircom dot net

Please avoid engaging in spam as it adds nothing to dialogue nor to conversation in this context. It requires little creativity to supply spam. Some of the responses, I must say, have been interesting and even valuable.

Paddy Hackett

by Physicist. Wed May 05, 2010 15:53

True creative artists lift spacecraft off the ground.

Post-Modernism wil be replaced by Post-Post Modernism.

Then we will get Post-Post-Post -Post Modernism.

The modern Arts World do not even have the imagination to define themselvesas anything other than "Post-"

Art is as trivial as the length of the skirt.

.

by paul o toole Wed May 05, 2010 19:04

Some folk think ice cream is tasteless but that dosent mean anything those who know better...

by Physicist. Wed May 05, 2010 19:26

Picasso always laughed at members of the human race for regarding his paintings as other than graffitii.

James Joyce equally sniggered at people who licked his A**SE.

Picasso is sniggering in his grave when more than $100 million is paid for a few daubs of his paint ,,just a few days ago.

See:

http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/record-price-for...54998

.

by Eileen Wed May 05, 2010 19:40

Picasso's treatment of women shows that he knew nothing about the human condition.

He was a con artist.
.

by puca Wed May 05, 2010 20:43

Eileen, you need to do some research on Picasso. Start with TJ Clarks work. By dismissing him you are dismissing one of the great political radicals of the 20th century.
http://www.artsjournal.com/man/2009/03/qa_with_2009_mel....html

by Eileen. Wed May 05, 2010 20:57

He produced ugly paintings which some people liked.
.

by Astronomer. Wed May 05, 2010 21:07

Picasso openly boasted that he was conning people.

Einstein did not con people.

Bohr did not con people.

James Joyce conned people.

Picasso conned people.

by puca Wed May 05, 2010 23:30

Picasso was no more a con than any other artist. So what if the rich want to pay enormous amounts of money for his work, that has nothing to do with his work but has to do with capitalism and valorisation of scarcity. Guernica remains so potent a work that Powell had it covered up before the Iraq war debates at the UN. You can choose to see Picasso's paintings as paint splashed on canvas and nothing more or his depiction of female bodies as sexist or find whatever you like to reinforce your own prejudices but to decide in a superficial way that picasso is a con or politically suspect without actually studying his work is to do yourself a disservice. It is enough not to like the stuff without passing unfounded and ignorant judgement.

by Fred Johnston Thu May 06, 2010 15:08

"Picasso's treatment of women shows that he knew nothing about the human condition." ('Eileen') That is simply a silly statement, in my view. Perhaps the fact that he wore striped pullovers meant he didn't know anything about the human condition either. Picasso attracted women and was attracted to them. Good for him. You should visit his museum, which was also his work space, in Paris, and take a peek at some of his correspondence. Picasso could DRAW, which is more than many artists today can do and virtually no younger artists. Just as Most young poets can't tell a sestina from an ode yet want to be treated 'seriously' as poets. Visual art today is mastered by the Saatchi-loving media; it's about 'product' and money. Arguably Van Gogh wouldn't sell today.

by Philistine. Thu May 06, 2010 16:40

A million Euros for a splodge of paint?

Art is the pretentious branch of the fashion industry.

Nobody in their right minds would look at a Picasso all day long.

Picasso's paintings are stored in vaults.

Mere bullion.

by Astronomer. Thu May 06, 2010 17:14

The art market is a commercial enterprise.

Clip the word "Picasso " from the bottom end of a painting and you render it completely worthless.

The bit you clip will get you more money than the painting.

The worth of a Picasso painting depends only on his signatire at the bottom.
.

by paul o toole Thu May 06, 2010 19:40

The only value art has is our ability to relate to it.
Because certain pieces hav been lauded as classical- by certain people- does not raise its value in artistic terms. Only in the eyes and wallets of those whose idea of art is in its related monetary value.
Monetary value on art is as an absurd a notion as saying all art is a con-job.
I've seen shit sell for millions.
Everyone in the world could posess a diamond if the 'market' was not so restricted and controlled by those most interested in its 'value'. Same with gold, and if you think about either of those things, theres little value in them other than they being shiny and dazzling.

Art, unfortunately, is nothing more than a market to those people who control it. They dont call it the music business for nothing....1% music/99%business. The Grammys and the Oscars are the highlight of the obscenity that has reduced the creative music and creative acting world to a commodity.
It is an absurd comment to say that picasso is a fraud, and then use that to condemn all artistic work as a con on that basis.

by Philistine. Sat May 08, 2010 15:37

The lack of real talent in the modern arts world is in inverse proportion to brashness of the arts world.

They call Tracey Emin's bed "art":

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/trace...d.htm

They call Roger Bacon's studio "art":

http://www.hughlane.ie/francis_bacons_studio.php?type=A...sno=1

They call Andy Warhol's soup cans "art":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Campbells_Soup_Cans_M...5.jpg

Modern Art is not just a pain.

Modern Art is boring.