iPod blamed for stealing the thunder from contemporary art

If you've been yearning for controversy, why not meet Mr. David Hockney? Commonly know as "Britain's best-loved living painter," Hockney has suggested that the proliferation of the iPod has been a primary contributor to the recent "fallow period of painting." He insists that today's society is "all about sound," and even mentions that people are turning off their eyes and ignoring contemporary art whilst "plugging their ears." Put simply, he believes the modern "decline in visual awareness" rests heavily on Apple's own cash cow, and further stirred the pot by insinuating that it led to "badly dressed people" who cared not about lines nor mass. As expected, a spokeswoman for Apple Australia refuted the claims, and while we certainly have seen no shortage of brilliant creations since the iPod explosion, there's always two sides to the canvas.

[Joe Smith @ Jun 15th 2007 6:41AM]

you wanna know what art really is these days? art is in design: how things work, and how beautiful they are. in that, the iPod is THE best example of art out there. a lotta people buy ipods just for looks. who wants "contemporary" art, which is just random splotches of paint, when you can have something that really functions? i just never got how contemporary art is still even being done. i guess you have to be an artiste to appreciate it?

[distantbody @ Jun 15th 2007 7:30AM]

This guy is complete fodder. It has nothing to do with the iPod *per se*, it the fact that over the past century, there has been a steadily growing list of forms of entertainment that are far easier to enjoy. This guy has forgotten that (visual)'art' is just another form of entertainment, but that this so-called 'true art' has crawled up its own arse in a spasm of elitism that comes with a growing irrelevance.

In conclusion, what I am trying to say is that people don't have to *like* or *appreciate* anything just because it was the historical norm.

[Fslade @ Jun 15th 2007 10:44AM]

Sorry, Joe, but art and design are completely different things. It doesn't mean I agree with Hockney. By the way, how can he say people are bad dressed if he's dressed like that? Gosh.

[sayton @ Jun 15th 2007 11:34AM]

Hockney's comments about technology are as ignorant and shitty as Joe Smith's views of art.

[El in AZ @ Jun 15th 2007 6:47AM]

In other proclamations, Hockney says the Internet should be turned off, because it's killing the encyclopedia business and Philips should withdraw its Sonicare toothbrush from the marketplace, because people are now going longer between cleanings.

[GuyJ @ Jun 15th 2007 7:00AM]

I smell technophobe, not only that but surely the biggest contemporary artist within the UK is Banksy.

[Cupofjustice @ Jun 15th 2007 5:15PM]

Funny... I have Banksy pics on my ipod...

[just.Rob @ Jun 15th 2007 7:11AM]

contemporary art has to be one of the most frustratingly awful things to ever have existed on the face of the earth...


You ever see Andy Warhol's "Invisible Sculpture"?

Yeah... I have... he's a fuck.

[slug @ Jun 15th 2007 7:16AM]

Ah ha ha ha ha!!! wat a joke!

[Richard @ Jun 15th 2007 7:22AM]

This guys stuff is kind of blah maybe thats the problem.

Maybe he has a ipod and that is his excuse for wearing a RED POKA-DOTED BOW TIE.

sheesh

[Nick @ Jun 15th 2007 9:40AM]

Shouldn't he be blamming the oversaturation of our culture by visual advertising for causing the public to learn how to "turn off our eyes"/learn how to filter out all the crap we dont want to actually look at (like his splatters on a canvas that represent aggression)?

Why do people who think they are an intellectual feel the need to wear bow-ties and cardigans?

[Nick @ Jun 15th 2007 9:46AM]

Shouldn't he be blamming the oversaturation of our culture by visual advertising for causing the public to learn how to "turn off our eyes"/learn how to filter out all the crap we dont want to actually look at (like his splatters on a canvas that represent aggression)?

Why do people who think they are an intellectual feel the need to wear bow-ties and cardigans?

[Ben Swain @ Jun 15th 2007 7:25AM]

Based on the way he dresses and the art behind him, I can see why people are choosing iPods over contemporary art. Maybe if they created art worth looking at they would get more attention.

I have a good friend who is an artist. I love her dearly, but I don't get her art. Music is my favorite art and that's why I love my iPod.

[Kim Bartholomew @ Aug 1st 2007 8:53AM]

Ben: This may seem to be a very odd question, but the Mt. Zion class of 1997 is planning a class reunion. Are you "The" Ben Swain that graduated with the class of 1997? If so, would you mind sending me an address so that we can ensure that you recieve an invitation to the event? Thank you for your time.

Kim Bartholomew

[WillTheSecond @ Jun 15th 2007 7:27AM]

I've been to the Tate modern and Britain, and nothing there caught my eye, it was just a bit irrelevant.

Besides, Hockney is wrong, people haven't become obsessed with sound. I use my iPod mainly when I commute, not at other times. Apart from the fact cinema sales are going up again, the popularity of on-demand TV (oh yeah, what about video iPods?) and YouTube certainly shows what technology can do for the visual image.

Maybe its not visual images that are out of favour, it's just HIS visual images. I'm a film enthusiast, so of course I would say this, but it is my belief that cinema is the new visual art, and it has the advantage of not being elitist.

[distantbody @ Jun 15th 2007 7:28AM]

This guy is complete fodder. It has nothing to do with the iPod *per se*, it the fact that over the past century, there has been a steadily growing list of forms of entertainment that are far easier to enjoy. This guy has forgotten that (visual)'art' is just another form of entertainment, but that this so-called 'true art' has crawled up its own arse in a spasm of elitism that comes with a growing irrelevance.

In conclusion, what I am trying to say is that people don't have to *like* or *appreciate* anything just because it was the historical norm.

[FermitTheKrog @ Jun 15th 2007 7:37AM]

Less contemporary art and more "dogs playing poker" please.

[L. Cyphre @ Jun 15th 2007 7:50AM]

Maybe people are just fed up (finally!) with the so-called contemporary *art*?

Because I know I am.

[austin @ Jun 15th 2007 1:58PM]

Art and design are two different things. Hockney is getting the iPOD confused with art. It is not art, it's industrial design. If every major museum had an advertising budget like Apple's, I can assure you that just as many people would be seeing the museum and enlightening themselves. Yet, if they were me they would be listening to music while doing so.

[L. Cyphre @ Jun 15th 2007 3:07PM]

Actually he doesn't comment on the design of the ipod at all, he just says that, as a tool, it changed the balance in the world of arts in favor of sound. I, on the other side, believe that people are simply tired of art that looks like (and has the approximate spiritual value of) something I almost walked into today after my neighbours (students) had a little drinking party last night.
Whether in our modern, superconsumeristic and time-obsessed world industrial design is merging with or even replacing a more traditional view of art is another question.

[Scooter @ Jun 15th 2007 7:51AM]

clearly he has never heard of YouTube. Pillock.

[b @ Jun 15th 2007 8:02AM]

He's completely mistaken. "Contemporary Art" isn't in decline, just the medium has changed. There is digital art all over the internet, from website designs to animations to digital drawings to photoshop collages. There are probably more people taking part in creating art today than ever before, and definitely more people seeing said art.

[reid @ Jun 15th 2007 8:02AM]

Wow, techies HATE art!

First up, David Hockney is a more important artist than banksy. While everyone else in the world (read: the suburbs) natter on about his political agenda, those of us who've lived around and seen the progression of his work usually groan with embarrassment every time a new piece is unveiled. It is just boringly obvious. "yeah man, we hate Bush!" etc. How original.

Secondly, Hockney is right in his own way. The Proliferation of the iPod has been the key to the fragmentation and personalisation of popular culture. In 2007, we will never have another Beatles or Elvis; someone who appeals to almost everyone and sells masses of records. Instead, Apple sell millions of iPods to people who then choose their own unique playlists. Now we all want our own personal pop culture, and we can all buy the same product with which to experience it.

-Reid.

[L. Cyphre @ Jun 15th 2007 8:23AM]

> Proliferation of the iPod has been the key to the fragmentation and personalisation of popular culture.

The key to the fragmentation and personalisation of popular culture would be the Internet and its ease of access and choice not the iPod, medium not a machine. Mp3 players are a sign, but definitely not the cause. And it's not limited to music either, we just don't hang paintings on the walls anymore but huge HD plasma TVs or digital photo frames. I do think there is a decline in the traditional art forms (I'm admittedly no expert though) as they adapt and cross over into the virtual realm but that is not a "Twilight of Art" as he seems to (over)dramatically suggest.

[Fslade @ Jun 15th 2007 10:45AM]

"In 2007, we will never have another Beatles or Elvis; someone who appeals to almost everyone and sells masses of records. Instead, Apple sell millions of iPods to people who then choose their own unique playlists."

Is it meant to be a bad thing?

[nonstatic @ Jun 15th 2007 8:20AM]

this is coming from the man with the polka-dotted bowtie? way to stay on top of your visual appearance, bucko.

[Daryl Herbert @ Sep 2nd 2007 5:53PM]

Polka dot bow tie and a COMBOVER. He's not exactly Mr. Visual Appeal.

[strider_mt2k @ Jun 15th 2007 8:35AM]

-or maybe this stuff is cyclical like so may other things seem to be?

Some big visual breakthrough could have everyone collecting masterworks like baseball cards given time!

[spam_from_engadget @ Jun 15th 2007 8:36AM]

I would probably have said "mobile phone" rather than "ipod"; the point is that both are devices that allow people to be less connected with the environment around them as the move through it, by immersing themselves in a private (sound) environment. And I would say that the "victims" of this change are not so much art (and architecture would be a more obvious example of that than Hockney's work) than community structures: once, we might have said Hello to our fellow commuters, but that's less likely if they're plugged in.

You can make a comparison with the relationship between live music and recorded music. If people are now more 'private' than they once were, then a move from live music (or theatre/cinema) to home recorded music / TV has kept that media available to them. However, if people are seeing less art in galleries, are they instead bringing it into their homes? Yes, many people do have a few prints or posters, but it doesn't compare to the quantity of music or video.

Perhaps a proliferation of digital picture frames and remote delivery of artworks into those frames is the answer.

[Ethan Duffy @ Jun 15th 2007 8:36AM]

The proliferation of the iPod/digital age has reduced the viability of a canon of important artists; we may all decide for ourselves.

I enjoy art, but not all of it, it depends if I agree with the tastes of the gallery owner or what they feel is important. He's actually denying sound to be as important as visuals in art, so he's plugging his ears more than using an iPod in any case.

[Ethan Duffy @ Jun 15th 2007 8:39AM]

The proliferation of the iPod/digital age has reduced the viability of a canon of important artists; we may all decide for ourselves.

I enjoy art, but not all of it, it depends if I agree with the tastes of the gallery owner or what they feel is important. He's actually denying sound to be as important as visuals in art, so he's plugging his ears more than using an iPod in any case.

[strider_mt2k @ Jun 15th 2007 8:39AM]

-or maybe this stuff is cyclical like so may other things seem to be?

Some big visual breakthrough could have everyone collecting masterworks like baseball cards given time!

[Darnell @ Jun 15th 2007 8:42AM]

L.Cyphre has a great point. The medium has definitely shifted. Traditional art will always have its place but in these days of smartphones and portable media devices, we've remained connected to our own individual worlds.
The way we recieve information has been diluted. Fortunate for us that when we're told this is the prevailing art form--that we can now take it upon ourselves to explore other outlets and make our own decisions.

If you ask me, art went wrong when it became more about the theory then the actual work. Contemporary art in general is full of simplistic forms and colors, yet the intent behind them somehow amasses books. I believe in artists whose work is more intricate and not as easily duplicated by a five year old.

[Bee Hatch @ Jun 15th 2007 8:59AM]

Who's this balloon head?

And why the fuck is he taking up my screen real estate?

[Jordan Louis @ Jun 15th 2007 9:11AM]

The fall of contemporary art is not due to the proliferation of works in the auditory realm, but in fact due to contemporary art itself. Modern art is steeped in postmodern concepts of meaninglessness, for meaning is fluid and can be imbued with any sort of message or idea. Religion, science and reason are all merely ideas, errant concepts for the postmodernist, and the world for them is simply a collection of norms and memes. Ultimately, contemporary art fails because it lacks any sort of meaning, and without meaning, it cannot be expected to resonate with the viewer and the viewer's psyche in the same way a more classical Renaissance portrait can. Furthermore, because of this lack of meaning, this useless mashing-up of unrelated concepts that is modern art, it requires very little skill or mastery in actual artistic techniques or concepts - it would be fairly easy for an amateur to fake their way into fame and fortune provided they have the necessary gallery connections.

Ultimately, the greatest enemy to contemporary art is contemporary art itself, not the iPod nor the music it carries. I find, in personal experience, that listening to music allows me to concentrate all the more keenly on my surroundings, and sharpens my visual perception. One medium of artistic expression cannot be compromised or blamed for the decline of another.

[Fslade @ Jun 15th 2007 10:46AM]

Contemporary art and Modern art are two different things, man. You're mixing things up.

[Adam @ Jun 15th 2007 9:32AM]

Badly dress people? Hey, nice tie dork!

[Ratchet the Lombax @ Jun 15th 2007 9:38AM]

I think that iPods and other such things are art in their own right. I know they look better than the so-called "art" that is in some studios some of that stuff just looks weird. There used to be a time when an artist had to have some talent to make art. Now any idiot can splatter paint on a canvas or plant a flower in a toilet and call it art.

[Ratchet the Lombax @ Jun 15th 2007 9:39AM]

I think that iPods and other such things are art in their own right. I know they look better than the so-called "art" that is in some studios some of that stuff just looks weird. There used to be a time when an artist had to have some talent to make art. Now any idiot can splatter paint on a canvas or plant a flower in a toilet and call it art.

[Brian @ Jun 15th 2007 9:39AM]

I like to listen to my iPod at the museum. This guy is an asshat and then he comments on how people look too? Take your bow-tie wearing, combover ass over to the old age home where people might give two craps about what you think.

[Ratchet the Lombax @ Jun 15th 2007 9:39AM]

I think that iPods and other such things are art in their own right. I know they look better than the so-called "art" that is in some studios some of that stuff just looks weird. There used to be a time when an artist had to have some talent to make art. Now any idiot can splatter paint on a canvas or plant a flower in a toilet and call it art.

[Sushi @ Jun 15th 2007 9:43AM]

he's soooo funny lol

[Dawn @ Jun 15th 2007 10:02AM]

Funny, every time I go to a modern art exhibition, someone's pressing an iPod into my hand so I can get a "tour" of the works that are hanging on the walls. Stop whining and start adapting!

[Lucky_You @ Jun 15th 2007 12:52PM]

Hockney is totally correct !

Made you look.

No he's not.

[murray @ Jun 15th 2007 1:11PM]

Contemporary art sucks anyway.

[Harry @ Jun 15th 2007 1:25PM]

I bet his entire collection of dolls agrees with him... and I bet they make their opinions very clear to him each and every time they all get together for a tea party. ;-)

[Carson @ Jun 15th 2007 1:28PM]

Damnit! now have to put the ipod down and go change out of my jeans and put on a tuxedo. Now where did I leave my cumber-bun....... ah under the TV.....okay good to go!

[Rick Lyon @ Jun 15th 2007 1:52PM]

Sounds like a broke artist looking to get his name in the paper in hopes of landing an exhibit.

[brycelb @ Jun 15th 2007 1:54PM]

For those that are not familiar with Mr. Hockney this latest rant is just another way to get people talking about him. What I found most interesting is his reference to painting. While Hockney is certainly an accomplished painter he is not known for his paintings. With out a doubt his most famous works are photographic. If your not privy to the banter that goes on in art schools (not design schools)this idea that something is always bastardizing our precious mediums is very prominent. It's been said about photography, then photographers said it about digitally produced art and now we have Hockney stating that the iPod is ruining art. NEXT!. Mr. Hockney has been trying to rip apart his own medium for years and now he is concerned that the iPod is ruining contemporary art. Another post claims that contemporary art is void of meaning. It couldn't be more backwards. What contemporary art is lacking is craft, there is way too much meaning in current art and not enough craftsmanship.

[Bobo @ Jun 15th 2007 2:44PM]

He would be singing a different tune if there was a "Hockney iPod" model.
I guarentee it.
Ch-Ching.