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.
posted Jun 15th 2007 6:36AM
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?
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.
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.
Hockney's comments about technology are as ignorant and shitty as Joe Smith's views of art.
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.
clearly he has never heard of YouTube. Pillock.
I smell technophobe, not only that but surely the biggest contemporary artist within the UK is Banksy.
Funny... I have Banksy pics on my ipod...
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.
Ah ha ha ha ha!!! wat a joke!
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
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Less contemporary art and more "dogs playing poker" please.
Maybe people are just fed up (finally!) with the so-called contemporary *art*?
Because I know I am.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"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?
this is coming from the man with the polka-dotted bowtie? way to stay on top of your visual appearance, bucko.
Polka dot bow tie and a COMBOVER. He's not exactly Mr. Visual Appeal.
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.
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.
-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!
-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!
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.
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.
Who's this balloon head?
And why the fuck is he taking up my screen real estate?
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.
Contemporary art and Modern art are two different things, man. You're mixing things up.
Hockney is actually a great artist. But he is even better at working the media to stay in the spotlight. Without these kinds of philosophical statements, he stays out of the lime light. With them, he can contnue to be a talked-about figure in contemporary culture. He is like Warhol -- it is not just about his art, it is about creating buzz and a persona. When these guys make statements like this, they are hoping for these kinds of reactions.
Badly dress people? Hey, nice tie dork!
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.
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.
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.
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.
he's soooo funny lol
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!
*Walks over to a painting, sniffs* Wha? It's not even scratch-and-sniff. But if rich people like it... One art please!
Sorry, obligatory Zoidberg quote aside (the guy's comments kind of reminded me of that), the decline in Contemporary art's standing in the contemporary world has nothing to do with the iPod. It has to do with two things, in my opinion.
First, it's been said in here that Contemporary art has been reduced to the level where any Tom Dick of Harry can "splatter paint on a canvas or plant a flower in a toilet and call it art." This is a dramatically narrow point of view, because actually creating art is to have some kind of PURPOSE or REASON or IDEA behind it. Or, if you're just a post-modernist, it looks cool and doesn't need a meaning at all (I think... I might have my schools of thought screwed up). However, Ratchet (I
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.
Hockney is totally correct !
Made you look.
No he's not.
Contemporary art sucks anyway.
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. ;-)
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!
Sounds like a broke artist looking to get his name in the paper in hopes of landing an exhibit.
He would be singing a different tune if there was a "Hockney iPod" model.
I guarentee it.
Ch-Ching.
Apple's iPod also stole the thunder from Creative Labs, who invented the MP3 player's GUI technology
Consider for moment Mr Hockney's history and anti-associative perspective as an artist. Or to put it this way, enter a realm of willing suspension of disbelief, and listen to what the man could be saying and how what he's saying may be for everyone's collective good. This requires patience, the very thing an ipod was designed to extinguish.
To start, I think to sound off with "David Hockney is a fuck" and that "contemporary art is a joke" only proves David's point to me all the more. The ipod is a device, but more than that it is an instrument of control. You get to pick your music, you can buy as much as you want, when you want it, and if you want to watch tv all day, you can. Great for all of us? Yes and no?
An ipod can do nothing but teach you to respond, react, and be a great audience member in society. A tool. The music may drive you to go into your basement and create (you could do that before the ipod was around), but most likely you'll just go buy more ideas that other people created and have made nothing for yourself. The ipod is to shut out the world and focus on yourself- your personal soundtrack to life.
Now consider Contemporary art. You HAVE to participate. You have to think. You have to look, look, and look again deeper than the surface and possibly be faced with a different outcome than you expected. You have to be patient. You have to get up off your arse and walk to the Museum, Park, etc, to see the work. You might even have to read - god help us.
So maybe in contrasting the nature of these two things, David's argument doesn't seem "stupid". Maybe he's not LITERALLY saying the IPOD is bad. Maybe their is some figurative language such as his reference to the hoards of people on the bus tuned out to their surrondings and daydreaming about themselves. If you don't have an Ipod with you, you might have to listen to the sound of the engine on the bus, or the homeless person next to you and in doing so you might create something new from life that enhances the human experience. Or you could just listen until you get bored, and then go home and buy more music to listen to and get bored again a couple days later.
When I hear an artist say their is a lack of appreciation for the line, or for form, I hear him talking more about the lack of attention to detail, the pursuit of things beyond your preconcieved notions about life or the lack of pursuit in general.
Well, you're close to a coherent thought, but then, close only counts in two circumstances, and this ain't one of 'em.
So let's start with the obvious - the implicit suggestion that visual art and aural art are somehow of different value. Basically, you're suggesting that if I'm listening to Shostakovich, Bach, et al. on the bus, I'm missing out on what, exactly? The jack brake? The incoherent ramblings of the person who needs psychiatric help? Is there really nothing that I could find in music, or audiobook, or whatever I might be listening to that wouldn't be more worthy than the white noise of the world?
Second, having spent a fair amount of time around contemporary visit art, let's be clear and honest. Much like any other form of art, the vast majority is mediocre at best. Patience is required, certainly, but all too often it's wasted on what is junk, or, at best, the merely competent.
Finally, the point you're ultimately trying to make, and really, Hockney probably is as well, in your own less than competent way, is this: art has changed. Completely. And that's because society has. Not because of the iPod, or "digital revolution," or anything else that people and pundits love to blather on about. Art has changed because of a fundmental shift in who consumes it. Art is no longer commissioned by an exclusive elite for their own enjoyment. The Emperor's taste doesn't determine what's created anymore, visually, aurally, or in any other manner.
A more egalitarian society has resulted in a revolution in art; one that began some time ago, and is far from completed. The problem with Hockney's critique is that it's wrong - we are in extraordinarily visual age, one that's almost overwhelming, in fact. We are constantly bombarded with new visual information. What Hockney probably means is that most of that content isn't particularly worthy of our time. In that, there's a good deal of truth.
The tension between the egalitarian in society and the push for an elitist excellence in art is one of the main touchpoints of the best that exists in contemporary art. That conflict will be long-lasting. It has nothing to do with the iPod, or fashion. The biggest mistake here is simple - if Hockney wants to make a statement, he ought to do so with the brush, because he apparently can't with words.
You're both putting words in Hockney's mouth. And the idea that the iPOd is creating a more egalitarian world, at least outside of music distribution, is bullshit. 99% of us use our iPod the same way Walkmans were used thirty years ago.
Hockney's saying that the iPod is becoming the opiate of the people. More than merely providing a soundtrack for your commute or drowning out noise, your iPod is dulling your experience with the world.
It's not an unintelligent thought. When you lose your hearing, they say your other senses become more acute. Could it be that over-stimulating your hearing could do the opposite?
I cant believe that guy accused other ppl of being badly dressed. What a tool. He looks like Mickey Mouse. I have an iPod but I dont use it much. I really dont understand why ppl pay thousands of dollars for "Art" that looks like it was made by a four year old. These so called artists are the biggest scam artists of this century. They say it is a graphical interpretation. I say they did some schrooms and busted out the finger paint.
Hey guys... Guess what? The iPod isn't the only freakin' PMP on the market, god damn...
Modern art is the biggest hoax of the 20th century.
http://www.artrenewal.org/
i think this guy may have found apple's next ad campaign; ipod as the canvas and snobbish people drooling over it.
Someone's always blaming technology for the decline of culture and society. First radio, then t.v., now portable media players.
People could just as easily blame photography for a declining interest in painting, or cinema for a lack of interest in the theater...oh wait they have. Maybe we should stop progress and innovation so people who already have money can't complain they're not getting as much as they used to.
This is just another case of an individual trying to create controversy, in order to gain publicity.