I don't know, having heard Giacometti talk about his work, I don't think that Giacometti was looking to be metaphorical or explanatory. He swaw sculpting as working out a problem in order to see it clearly and to see its potential answer. He would often talk about how he didn't think he would ever be done because it was just a project each time to see if he could see something new in the form of a human.
The first thing I said when I saw his works was that he definitely influenced Bacon (with the only difference being that Bacon presents expressive and violent monsters and a brutality in general that is visible everywhere). When I noticed more closely the positions of the faces, eyes and bodies in his works the first thing that came to my mind was Beckett and then I learned that they were friends .2/2. Beckett's characters have a hell around them and they do not at the same time within their unrealistic character and the schizophrenia that is art in its fake form, they have a characteristic stoicism and militancy of "I will not do you the favor of dying". The figures are tortured, hungry and stoic. There is a hell around them. I don't know if they had discussed this or if they caught the spirit of the time at the same time, however, the connection seems to be there.
Peppiatt stated: "I didn't dare go and knock." But why not? Why couldn't Peppiatt just go and knock on Giacometti's door and talk to him? I was looking at my most recent sculptures and it was obvious that they were far superior to the sculptures of Giacometti which are so embarrassingly bad, and no one really likes them, but art critics have to pretend to because they are obliged to just as they pretend to like de Kooning because they are obliged to. I am still waiting for Peppiatt to knock on my door but I don't think he dare knock: but it is his loss, not mine.
i'd ask him how he got so rich to be able to piss away this kind of money. dont get me wrong, the sculpture is amazing, but 74 million is a little steep
"The first thing Giacometti did was to suggest a great deal of space around the figure" proclaims this pretentious pundit. Well, there is a great deal of space within us and without us - the space of the cosmos surrounds us all, dunnit? One could say Giacometti was more or less conscious of the fragility of the ego and more or less consciously expressed it in his figures and drawings. The first thing that struck me 60 years ago when I saw Giacometti's stick men was that they were comic. The painter Lowry had made a name for himself with his matchstick men and dogs which had finally caught on after a lifetime in near obscurity as a council rent collector. For whatever reason - probably because they were different - they became popular and collectible. Leaving all the arty farty psuedo philosophical clap trap aside for one moment - better still shoveling it into the garbage where it belongs - the only test of a piece is 'do I like it or don't I?' Art is such a nebulous thing that an observer might be moved by something the artist never intended - or was even aware of. Moreover, the viewer may see different things in the work at different times.
Of course we are all surrounded by space, that's not a distinction here. What's distinct is the phsychological space the sculpture presses against. This space is not evident without the relationship of the viewer, because the space does not exist in absentia. It requires a bit of thoughtful reflection though, and is difficult to negate. Thus whether one 'likes it or not' isn't really a point of criticism, but rather of taste ☺️0
a bunch of castings gone wrong,and they say its now art..pure bullshit as fine art....sell for millions,,great business..i think this CALKUM GUY has been in therapy too long...have a nice dayy.
Such a beautiful explanation! More Colm please!
I don't know, having heard Giacometti talk about his work, I don't think that Giacometti was looking to be metaphorical or explanatory. He swaw sculpting as working out a problem in order to see it clearly and to see its potential answer. He would often talk about how he didn't think he would ever be done because it was just a project each time to see if he could see something new in the form of a human.
BUT of course , a good, excellent or famous artist never has the final interpretation. That's what makes a great piece of work.
this is a fabulous explanation
The first thing I said when I saw his works was that he definitely influenced Bacon (with the only difference being that Bacon presents expressive and violent monsters and a brutality in general that is visible everywhere). When I noticed more closely the positions of the faces, eyes and bodies in his works the first thing that came to my mind was Beckett and then I learned that they were friends .2/2. Beckett's characters have a hell around them and they do not at the same time within their unrealistic character and the schizophrenia that is art in its fake form, they have a characteristic stoicism and militancy of "I will not do you the favor of dying". The figures are tortured, hungry and stoic. There is a hell around them. I don't know if they had discussed this or if they caught the spirit of the time at the same time, however, the connection seems to be there.
You're talking about my three favorite artists and I agree with everything you said.
I think it look so much like our Shadow.... and at the same time like a kind of inner ....
Colm: the space representing the lonliness of th....
Giachommeti: i like playing with clay bro
our shadows get this different shapes ....
Peppiatt stated: "I didn't dare go and knock." But why not? Why couldn't Peppiatt just go and knock on Giacometti's door and talk to him? I was looking at my most recent sculptures and it was obvious that they were far superior to the sculptures of Giacometti which are so embarrassingly bad, and no one really likes them, but art critics have to pretend to because they are obliged to just as they pretend to like de Kooning because they are obliged to. I am still waiting for Peppiatt to knock on my door but I don't think he dare knock: but it is his loss, not mine.
or the shadows on the wall in the cave
What was it made of...????? The peaces look as if they were carved out of a rock..........
super
superfluous words
i wish i get to a point where i understand how this is worth 74 million
amir ask the guy who bought it....
i'd ask him how he got so rich to be able to piss away this kind of money. dont get me wrong, the sculpture is amazing, but 74 million is a little steep
@@amir-xh3mw basically for the very wealthy, it's a place to park your money, until time to sell for more.
Context
16M pounds for a Banksy piss take this week. It's beyond me how these buyers have the brains to even function on a daily basis.
"The first thing Giacometti did was to suggest a great deal of space around the figure" proclaims this pretentious pundit. Well, there is a great deal of space within us and without us - the space of the cosmos surrounds us all, dunnit?
One could say Giacometti was more or less conscious of the fragility of the ego and more or less consciously expressed it in his figures and drawings.
The first thing that struck me 60 years ago when I saw Giacometti's stick men was that they were comic. The painter Lowry had made a name for himself with his matchstick men and dogs which had finally caught on after a lifetime in near obscurity as a council rent collector.
For whatever reason - probably because they were different - they became popular and collectible. Leaving all the arty farty psuedo philosophical clap trap aside for one moment - better still shoveling it into the garbage where it belongs - the only test of a piece is 'do I like it or don't I?'
Art is such a nebulous thing that an observer might be moved by something the artist never intended - or was even aware of. Moreover, the viewer may see different things in the work at different times.
willie otoole o you are so wise dun na but an extreme saddo loyalist too
Of course we are all surrounded by space, that's not a distinction here. What's distinct is the phsychological space the sculpture presses against. This space is not evident without the relationship of the viewer, because the space does not exist in absentia. It requires a bit of thoughtful reflection though, and is difficult to negate. Thus whether one 'likes it or not' isn't really a point of criticism, but rather of taste ☺️0
Ummmmmmmmm 🙄
a bunch of castings gone wrong,and they say its now art..pure bullshit as fine art....sell for millions,,great business..i think this CALKUM GUY has been in therapy too long...have a nice dayy.
But how do you really feel. Good rant!
You're having a lousy day, we can tell.