Hi
I read something in last Friday's Metro that Park Hill Flats were going to be transformed for one night only into a 'citadel of light' that eve. For the opening of the Sheffield Art thingy. Did this happen? Was it any good? Any pics, as I've not heard anything more about it.
Thanks
S

Not sure about that,last time I saw Park Hill, it was the largest billboard in the world...best use it's ever had.

Hi
I read something in last Friday's Metro that Park Hill Flats were going to be transformed for one night only into a 'citadel of light' that eve. For the opening of the Sheffield Art thingy. Did this happen? Was it any good? Any pics, as I've not heard anything more about it.
Thanks
S

Small pic in last nights star. Nothing spectacular!

Thanks! I forgot about it and was in the Local (on friday) - thought about going back to have a look. Good job I didn't?

Can't find any pics on Star site so it must have been rubbish? Oh well, it sounded like a fab idea!

some pics on here...

http://flickr.com/groups/sheffield/discuss/72157603915387749/

Thank you.
Hmmm - I agree - doesn't look that great. The third pic looks good - but not as spectaular as I thought it might.

i saw that and thought 'those flats aren't usually lit up' it was crap considering it cost money to achieve.
would have been better if it was in some way arty but it was simply sticking massive lights under a building, the hotel bristol had better illumination for years.

I don't know why artists bother in Sheffield.

how was it art?

It was seriously bad, couple of naff spot lights with dodgy wiring shining at the middle of this great lump of a building. Looked like it was involved in some sort of soundless police siege, was expecting some sort of king kong helicopter scene. Maybe next time there'll be something really exciting like a turd by lamp light.

how was it art?

See what I mean.

See what I mean.
No! I don't see what you mean? What do you mean?

No! I don't see what you mean? What do you mean?

The illumination is part of a contemporary (A.K.A. "that modern crap that cost a fortune and looks rubbish, I prefer pictures of sheep in fields etc. etc.") art festival running this year (http://www.artsheffield.org.uk/as08/index.html)

"How was it art" is a stupid question (IMO), anything can be art, there isn't an international standard of what is/isn't art. What makes the Mona Lisa art, but not an illuminated building, the fact that the painting is "nice" and the building is "horrible" ?

I don't know why artists bother in Sheffield.

I agree.

Although saying that, I do think it looked a bit naff (well from the photo's atleast) compared with what I was expecting.

I agree.

Although saying that, I do think it looked a bit naff (well from the photo's atleast) compared with what I was expecting.

It wasn't brilliant, I'd have prefered pictures projected on it, but I see what she was trying to do.

There's one peice of art as part of the festival where fallen leaves have been put all over the floor of the Winter Gardens. It's quite interesting and makes you think (although not really about anything deep and significant in my case :hihi:).

Shall we just agree that illuminating the flats in such an unspectacular way - whether or not it was 'art' - was pretty poor and, as a launch for something, very poor indeed!?

The idea was good, the execution could have been better.

The illumination is part of a contemporary (A.K.A. "that modern crap that cost a fortune and looks rubbish, I prefer pictures of sheep in fields etc. etc.") art festival running this year (http://www.artsheffield.org.uk/as08/index.html)

"How was it art" is a stupid question (IMO), anything can be art, there isn't an international standard of what is/isn't art. What makes the Mona Lisa art, but not an illuminated building, the fact that the painting is "nice" and the building is "horrible" ?

Well, if I actually held that opinon (which I don't) I wouldn't have started this thread... oh I can't be bothered!

I agree with other people though, it seemed quite an exciting idea, which seems to have disappointed people. (I'm quite well aware thanks of the arts festival btw).

(I'm quite well aware thanks of the arts festival btw).


Why did you ask "how is it art ?" then, I'm confused, you know it's art but not how it's art ?

It wasn't brilliant, I'd have prefered pictures projected on it, but I see what she was trying to do.

But she didn't really do anything. If it was a project about the art of the architect and the building was being lit as an example of his work then I could see why it was done in that way. But it was supposed to be a work of art using the building but it was rubbish and a shame, because there are artists out there who would have designed something good.

This explains the idea behind it.

Annika Eriksson
‘Maximum Happiness’ *

For Art Sheffield 08 Eriksson will have the facade of the Park Hill housing estate illuminated by floodlights for one night. Towering over the city like a majestic castle, the estate is a landmark building, yet what it stands for is ambiguous. In a visible state of decay, about to be redeveloped into contemporary apartments, it still testifies to the unparalled social vision of the 1960s that futurist architecture should be accessible to everyone. Is this utopia exhausted? In the title Eriksson cites the architects of Park Hill who wrote that, although they did their best to fulfil the residents’ wishes “it is clearly impossible to secure the maximum happiness of everybody”. Yet they hoped “that Park Hill is a satisfactory ‘machine for living in’.” In the night of its illumination this modern machine will perform once more, maybe to display its exhaustion, maybe to revivify the promise it once embodied.

So it was basically a project highlighting the social side of the building (as opposed to the look of the building itself).

"Annika Eriksson
‘Maximum Happiness’ *

For Art Sheffield 08 Eriksson will have the facade of the Park Hill housing estate illuminated by floodlights for one night. Towering over the city like a majestic castle, the estate is a landmark building, yet what it stands for is ambiguous. In a visible state of decay, about to be redeveloped into contemporary apartments, it still testifies to the unparalled social vision of the 1960s that futurist architecture should be accessible to everyone. Is this utopia exhausted? In the title Eriksson cites the architects of Park Hill who wrote that, although they did their best to fulfil the residents’ wishes “it is clearly impossible to secure the maximum happiness of everybody”. Yet they hoped “that Park Hill is a satisfactory ‘machine for living in’.” In the night of its illumination this modern machine will perform once more, maybe to display its exhaustion, maybe to revivify the promise it once embodied."



Sounds like a load of pretentious crap to me.

Pipe down Nick2 - you're starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch!!

"Annika Eriksson
‘Maximum Happiness’ *

For Art Sheffield 08 Eriksson will have the facade of the Park Hill housing estate illuminated by floodlights for one night. Towering over the city like a majestic castle, the estate is a landmark building, yet what it stands for is ambiguous. In a visible state of decay, about to be redeveloped into contemporary apartments, it still testifies to the unparalled social vision of the 1960s that futurist architecture should be accessible to everyone. Is this utopia exhausted? In the title Eriksson cites the architects of Park Hill who wrote that, although they did their best to fulfil the residents’ wishes “it is clearly impossible to secure the maximum happiness of everybody”. Yet they hoped “that Park Hill is a satisfactory ‘machine for living in’.” In the night of its illumination this modern machine will perform once more, maybe to display its exhaustion, maybe to revivify the promise it once embodied."



Sounds like a load of pretentious crap to me.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

The "promise" it embodied has now been "held up to the light" and we can clearly see what an empty promise it turned out to be.
"Unparalleled social vision of the 60's?" "Futuristic architecture accessible to everyone?"
Spin doctors have been strutting their stuff for years and they don't get much more transparent then that twaddle.

Park Hill's future is fait accompli, I know, but when are councillors and developers going to realise the truth of the ancients? You can't polish a turd!

Pipe down Nick2 - you're starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch!!

Strange choice of program, Monty Python was though of as modern/new/edgy/experimental when it started, and no doubt lots of people thought it was crap.

Luckily people not liking/understanding them didn't stop them.

where was the art in it then? cos it wasn't executed artfully and the message (pretentious indeed ) wasn't clear or even existent to the people who saw it.
you can say anything is art and I can call an an orange an apple but that doesn't make it so.
the ethernet lights on the back of my pc are more thought provoking.
and I consider myself an artist

where was the art in it then?

Where is the art in anything ?

"How was it art" is a stupid question (IMO), anything can be art, there isn't an international standard of what is/isn't art. What makes the Mona Lisa art, but not an illuminated building, the fact that the painting is "nice" and the building is "horrible" ?

'Anything can be art?' Oh dear nick2, how wrong can you be.
Just because somebody says that something is art doesn't necessarily make it so.
An artist has to have skill, flair, creativity, dedication, talent and hard work which is pretty much the criteria for life in general. Too many so called and usually self proclaimed artists are usually devoid of most if not all of these attributes and wouldn't know a 'proper' piece of art if it jumped up and bit them on the easel.
I'll give you an analogy. I can mow the lawn and trim a few hedges but it doesn't make me a gardener.

'Anything can be art?' Oh dear nick2, how wrong can you be.
Just because somebody says that something is art doesn't necessarily make it so.
An artist has to have skill, flair, creativity, dedication, talent and hard work which is pretty much the criteria for life in general. Too many so called and usually self proclaimed artists are usually devoid of most if not all of these attributes and wouldn't know a 'proper' piece of art if it jumped up and bit them on the easel.
I'll give you an analogy. I can mow the lawn and trim a few hedges but it doesn't make me a gardener.

Couldn't really have said that better myself pininsho. However, to answer nick2's original question to me. The reason I asked 'how is it art?' - I asked because there seemed to be a little bit of disappointment in this installation. Therefore I tried to invite a debate about 'art'. I myself thought on reading about it happening that it was a fascinating idea and indeed I was excited that something artful would be brought to the city. I really like the idea of Maximum Happiness and enjoyed the thought that when people were moved into the flats, that this was part of the 'sell'. However, it appeared that indeed it was badly (un-artfully?) executed and did not 'speak' to anyone commenting on here that had seen it. Surely art must speak to its audience? I asked nick2 for his thoughts on why it was art - all I got was 'anything can be art' which clearly isn't true. Anyhoo - I bow out of this debate because I can't be bothered with the usual old SF slanging match that may ensue. (I did like the dog turd comment though!)

In fact - I found a beautiful piece of art outside my house this morning, unfortunately I trod in it so have been carrying art around on the bottom of my boot all day. Now! Who's being puerile???

'Anything can be art?' Oh dear nick2, how wrong can you be.
Just because somebody says that something is art doesn't necessarily make it so.
An artist has to have skill, flair, creativity, dedication, talent and hard work which is pretty much the criteria for life in general. Too many so called and usually self proclaimed artists are usually devoid of most if not all of these attributes and wouldn't know a 'proper' piece of art if it jumped up and bit them on the easel.
I'll give you an analogy. I can mow the lawn and trim a few hedges but it doesn't make me a gardener.

Yes it does, perhaps not a great gardener and perhaps not everyone will like your garden but your still a gardener.

The same "debate" allways ensues when modern art is mentioned. Just because you don't think it's real art doesn't mean it's not. I don't real like Henry Moore sculpture but that doesn't mean I brand it as crap.

its just a shame a fuse didnt blow or other some such disaster....

:hihi:

That's a clearer answer/question than you gave/asked earlier. I think we are in agreement?

Meant for nick2

Couldn't really have said that better myself pininsho. However, to answer nick2's original question to me. The reason I asked 'how is it art?' - I asked because there seemed to be a little bit of disappointment in this installation. Therefore I tried to invite a debate about 'art'. I myself thought on reading about it happening that it was a fascinating idea and indeed I was excited that something artful would be brought to the city. I really like the idea of Maximum Happiness and enjoyed the thought that when people were moved into the flats, that this was part of the 'sell'. However, it appeared that indeed it was badly (un-artfully?) executed and did not 'speak' to anyone commenting on here that had seen it. Surely art must speak to its audience? I asked nick2 for his thoughts on why it was art - all I got was 'anything can be art' which clearly isn't true. Anyhoo - I bow out of this debate because I can't be bothered with the usual old SF slanging match that may ensue. (I did like the dog turd comment though!)

I agree with you there. I was there thinking it was great that we were getting such a large scale art project in the city, but was also disappointed at the lacklustre 'effect' of the project. It was art, but perhaps just not a good example of it. :dunno: (I gave the leaves in the Winter Garden as a good example of simple art that made me think).

And on the modern art point, personally I love a lot of it (although there are some examples which just make me think 'what the **** is that!'), however I tend to find 'classical' art rather boring. I can appreciate the skill that has gone into it, but it doesn't do anything for me (possibly because it doesn't make you stop and think).

I feel that this is the whole point of 'art'. Human beings respond to something, whether it be Titian, Warhol, Bansky, Tracy Emin or anything in between,. They are all artists that have made ME stop and think, equally there must be many people who think all of that is **** and conversely 'artists' who I think are ... 'WTF'?....

The woman who made this piece of art has clearly not been appreciated. Which, from what I see, means that she didn't speak to her audience. They (the audience) could have been the residents of Park Hill, they could have been the Councillors who commissioned the piece, or they could have been me or you. OR they could have been other people not in this group who couldn't give a damn and are thinking why is that money being spent on that useless piece of poo, and why are we paying for it.

Ask them/us 'What is Art'?

OR they could have been other people not in this group who couldn't give a poo and are thinking why is that money being spent on that useless piece of poo, and why are we paying for it. Ask them 'What is Art'?

Why bother to ask them, if their main concern is who is paying for it then they will never approve of anything. 10 million pounds for a Picasso painting ? You could resurface a mile of motorway for that.

Nick2 - you don't even understand what you're saying, and I don't think you want anyone else to understand either. Comparing some millionaire who wants people to be thrilled by his Picasso wallpaper with some people who live in Parkhill flats seems to be the level of argument you are capable of.

It wasn't very good. There was an audience, not a market. The end.

Nick2 - you don't even understand what you're saying, and I don't think you want anyone else to understand either. Comparing some millionaire who wants people to be thrilled by his Picasso wallpaper with some people who live in Parkhill flats seems to be the level of argument you are capable of.

It wasn't very good. There was an audience, not a market. The end.

if only I had your depth of understanding, I can only hope to one day have your insight

I'm not comparing millionaires with people on park hill, what are you on about ?

Keep working at it love. It doesn't come easy.:headbang:

Rather than tie ourselves up in knots over a crap lightshow, and have Newsnight type discussions over 'what is art', probably best to just get on with it.:D

Keep working at it love. It doesn't come easy.:headbang:

Rather than tie ourselves up in knots over a crap lightshow, and have Newsnight type discussions over 'what is art', probably best to just get on with it.:D

If you don't want to discus it thats fine but resorting to petty insults just makes you look rather silly.

I think it's been discussed to death - which is the worst thing that can happen to art. Off to bed now. Don't mind looking silly. Cheers. x

I am the OP. I like all your comments, thanks for the passion.

I think it's been discussed to death - which is the worst thing that can happen to art. Off to bed now. Don't mind looking silly. Cheers. x

How can you discuss a piece of art too much ? Should people stop discussing Andy Warhol now, has he been done to death ?

It was a crummy light show. It was also a crummy photo of a tin of soup. Night.

It was a crummy light show. It was also a crummy photo of a tin of soup. Night.

It was a litho print of a tin of soup but I tend to agree it was rubbish

Alright. We agree? x Duh.

Yes it does, perhaps not a great gardener and perhaps not everyone will like your garden but your still a gardener.

No it doesn't. I'm simply maintaining a piece of lawn and a hedge through necessity. To be a gardener you have to have a wide knowledge and enthusiasm for growing and maintaining plants and planting them in a way (whether modern or traditional) that creates a certain effect in a given space. So you see the term gardener has a defined definition. So does the term artist.

The same "debate" allways ensues when modern art is mentioned. Just because you don't think it's real art doesn't mean it's not. I don't real like Henry Moore sculpture but that doesn't mean I brand it as crap.

Who mentioned anything about modern art and what is your definition of modern art anyway?

It was a crummy light show. It was also a crummy photo of a tin of soup. Night.

It was a litho print of a tin of soup but I tend to agree it was rubbish

yeah but it was an innovative litho of a tin of condensed soup that was the art in it, and that was the brilliance. Warhol took an imaginative leap to get there and then used some talent to produce the final work.
the light up park hill flats was probably done in reverse;

What can we do, thats impressive?
er, light up the biggest building in sheffield.
but why would we do that?
well, er, cos it will highlight the social housing problem in a way that er(inset more rubbish here) and make pepole think about deep stuff.
Great! lets ring hss see if they'll do a deal on overnight hire.

the execution was in all honesty crap, gail porter on the side of big ben was more imaginative.
just off the top of my head using lights and park hill as a starting point;
project a huge box over park hill with lasers and have a 30 foot long fragile 'sticker' or this way up banner hung from it.
Use a hundred cardbord cut outs of animals that are endangered and put one on each balcony, project 'where have all the animals gone' on the side.
have a mass spot lit abseil /rope climb up and down the side each spot has a different currency symbol on it .

none of the above are espcially arty but I am pretty certain that all are more imaginative and thought provoking than simply sticking three massive white flood lights underneath.
I was stood waiting for a bus when I saw it and had to look over the train station to see it and i remember thinking why have they lit park hill up? it really is an ugly building.

yeah but it was an innovative litho of a tin of condensed soup that was the art in it, and that was the brilliance. Warhol took an imaginative leap to get there and then used some talent to produce the final work.


I agree it was a brilliant idea, and how he marketed it was also brilliant, I just don't like the soup tins, I do like the portraits though.

So you see the term gardener has a defined definition. So does the term artist.

Thats is beacause your definition of "gardener" is too limited, as is your definition of "artist". You seem to think a gardener has to produce something on the scale of Capability Brown to be a real gardener and an artist has to paint a nice landscape with lots of trees and sheep to be a great artist.

You don't have to know the latin name of every plant in your garden to be a great gardener any more than you have to spend 10 years in Paris drinking absynth and having casual sex to become a great artist.

Again becasue you say it's not art doesn't make it so.

Who mentioned anything about modern art and what is your definition of modern art anyway?

Art thats modern, not old fashioned.

Thats is beacause your definition of "gardener" is too limited, as is your definition of "artist". You seem to think a gardener has to produce something on the scale of Capability Brown to be a real gardener and an artist has to paint a nice landscape with lots of trees and sheep to be a great artist.
You're coming over as very naive and gullible nick2. My definitions are not too limited. To not adhere to a certain definitive standard means that everybody could set themselves up to be what ever they want to be and end up conning their fellow man. You see the consequences of that on Rogue Traders all the time. You also see it in the art world which is why there is so much cynicism towards art and artists in general.
Where did I mention something on the scale of Capability Brown? I mentioned a 'given space'. It could be Chatsworth or it could be a window box or hanging basket.


You don't have to know the latin name of every plant in your garden to be a great gardener any more than you have to spend 10 years in Paris drinking absynth and having casual sex to become a great artist.

I quite agree. But that's your limited (and wrong) interpretation of what I was saying.

Again becasue you say it's not art doesn't make it so.

Yes it does. You've got it the wrong way round. Just because you say something is art doesn't make it so. That's why we have definitions of things so that people can understand what it takes to become an artist, gardener, footballer, chef, builder, teacher.....etc,etc,etc enabling you to make an informed decision about what you, as an individual, is buying into.


Art thats modern, not old fashioned.

There's plenty of modern art that looks old fashioned and there's plenty of old fashioned art that looks modern so maybe you'd like to start explaining yourself a little better by giving some examples so that I know exactly where you're coming from.

You're coming over as very naive and gullible nick2.

How so ?

And what do you think you're coming over as ?

Do you think I'm gullible becasue I "believe" that the things in the Tate modern gallery are art, whereas you see through this scam and realise it's just a load of crap ?

Yes it does. You've got it the wrong way round. Just because you say something is art doesn't make it so. That's why we have definitions of things so that people can understand what it takes to become an artist, gardener, footballer, chef, builder, teacher.....etc,etc,etc enabling you to make an informed decision about what you, as an individual, is buying into.


So let me get this right, me saying it is art doesn't make it so, but you saying it isn't definately means it isn't ?

Your main problem seems to be that people might be passing themsleves of as artists, and making a fortune, when they arn't "real" artists.

I bet you're one of those people who say "I could do a painting like that, if I wanted to", well.....why don't you ? because you haven't been to artists school and got an artists licence ?

How so ?

And what do you think you're coming over as ?

Probably a 'know it all'.

Do you think I'm gullible becasue I "believe" that the things in the Tate modern gallery are art, whereas you see through this scam and realise it's just a load of crap ?

Again you're assuming too much nick. There are certain exhibits that definately are art (whether I like them or not is not the point) and there are others that certainly aren't.

So let me get this right, me saying it is art doesn't make it so, but you saying it isn't definately means it isn't ?

As long as it follows a clear definition then yes.

Your main problem seems to be that people might be passing themsleves of as artists, and making a fortune, when they arn't "real" artists.

That's just one problem and the main reason why certain artistic fads come and go so quick, because most people eventually grow up and realise what's really important in life and how ridiculous they were to follow a certain fad that had a short shelf life. Fashion is the classic example.


I bet you're one of those people who say "I could do a painting like that, if I wanted to", well.....why don't you ? because you haven't been to artists school and got an artists licence ?

Of course I could put a pile of bricks in a room and call it art or have an empty room with the light going on and off and call it art but I don't because I have more respect for my fellow man than to try and con them to boost my own notoriety, ego and bank balance.

As long as it follows a clear definition then yes.

What is this definition ?

That's just one problem and the main reason why certain artistic fads come and go so quick, because most people eventually grow up and realise what's really important in life and how ridiculous they were to follow a certain fad that had a short shelf life. Fashion is the classic example.

No-one is forcing you to like it, or follow it, or buy it or do anything realy.

Same with fashion, if you want to dress in bear skins or loon pants then fine, you do that, but it doesn't mean everyone else should stay in the past with you, some people are interested in what's new, what's fresh, what's interesting, what challenges them.

Of course I could put a pile of bricks in a room and call it art or have an empty room with the light going on and off and call it art but I don't because I have more respect for my fellow man than to try and con them to boost my own notoriety, ego and bank balance.

If thats all you think art is about then.........oh why bother, I'll send you a nice picture of a crying gypsy girl in the post.

What is this definition ?

Is this an extensive enough definition for you?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/art

Is this an extensive enough definition for you?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/art

No, I want your definition, or do you print that out and carry it round with you so you can judge any "art" you might come across ?

Although "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." does describe lighting up Park Hill or a pile of bricks, so they must be art ?

the only real definition is if its not connected to maths its art.
science and maths can be unnecessarily applied to anything.
theres a science to building bridges but theres an art of designing them.

I presume all this rudeness, sarcasm and pomposity keeps everyone else out of your 'garret' anyway Nick2... so you can get on with thinking about what it might be like to produce some art, if only anyone in Sheffield would ever appreciate it.

Can't believe you're still chuntering on!

No, I want your definition, or do you print that out and carry it round with you so you can judge any "art" you might come across ?

That is pretty much my definition.
As I originally said. I want to see skill, talent, dedication, hardwork, craft and flair in my art. I want to see some thing that not everybody or anybody can do so that the experience of observing the art isn't diluted by mediocrity or the 'well I could have done that scenario'.
Is that clear enough for you?

Although "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." does describe lighting up Park Hill or a pile of bricks, so they must be art ?

Er, how is Park Hill or a pile of bricks the work of nature?:huh::loopy:
I think we both know nick that this statement is about artists such as Picasso and Monet.

I presume all this rudeness, sarcasm and pomposity keeps everyone else out of your 'garret' anyway Nick2... so you can get on with thinking about what it might be like to produce some art, if only anyone in Sheffield would ever appreciate it.

Can't believe you're still chuntering on!

I can't believe you bothered to post that just to have a personal go at me, I'm flattered I guess.

Er, how is Park Hill or a pile of bricks the work of nature?:huh::loopy:


Please read your own deffinition - "or counteract the work of nature"

I think we both know nick that this statement is about artists such as Picasso and Monet.

Do we, how ?

Please read your own deffinition - "or counteract the work of nature"

Look at most of Picasso's work and you'll see him 'counteracting the work of nature'. Quite simple to understand really once you see his work.

Look at most of Picasso's work and you'll see him 'counteracting the work of nature'. Quite simple to understand really once you see his work.

That doesn't mean the phrase ONLY applies to Picasso (who you approve of) and no other artist (like the pile of bricks artist who you don't seem to approve of).

And how can it be a universal definition of art if certain bits only apply to certain artists ?

That doesn't mean the phrase ONLY applies to Picasso (who you approve of) and no other artist (like the pile of bricks artist who you don't seem to approve of).

And how can it be a universal definition of art if certain bits only apply to certain artists ?

Who says that I approve of Picasso? Again you presume too much. I was simply giving his name as one of a number of artists who, in his paintings, has 'counteracted the work of nature'.
A pile of bricks is not a natural form. It is a man made form made out of natural materials so the very clear definition that you've attempted to use to try and justify your position simply doesn't apply.
Picasso's paintings obviously took some artistic skill and flair to produce whereas a pile of bricks didn't. That statement is not open to debate, it's a simple fact. Think of it as a 2+2=4 scenario. Or in other words, an undeniable fact. Something that can't be argued against.It was simply an idea someone had that took no artistic flair whatsoever to produce. Unfortunately there seems to be plenty of people out there gullible enough to fall for it.

A pile of bricks is not a natural form. It is a man made form made out of natural materials

Is that not what "counteracts nature" means, something man-made, not of nature ?

All art is man-made, none of it is "natural", so all artists, not just Picasso, counteract nature in an atempt to create something of beauty/meaning.

Again, just because a pile of bricks doesn't do anything for you, and you don't think it's artistic doesn't mean it's not.

You're like a pair of kids!

You're like a pair of kids!

Sorry dad.

We're discussing the topic.

Oh, all right then, carry on.

ha ha! they're having a right old ding dong! It's all gone way over my head. But these things usually do!

It's all gone way over my head. But these things usually do!

But you still have a valid opinion on the matter.

I think you've won nick2, your sparring partner's gone home for his tea!

I think you've won nick2, your sparring partner's gone home for his tea!

:P I'm baaaaaaack!!!

Is that not what "counteracts nature" means, something man-made, not of nature ?

You're not the brightest are you nick?
Just to try again to make it crystal clear. One of a number of definitions of art is that it requires;"Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."
So lets take a work of nature (I'm sure that not even you believes that Park Hill is a work of nature) such as a flower and create a work of art from it.
To imitate it you try to copy it as close as possible (that's the definition of imitate).
To supplement it you add, say, extra flowers to it or other things that weren't originally there.
To alter it you, say, add extra petals or change the colour of the flower.
And to counteract it you could, say, have a flower growing out of a cloud.
Of course these are just examples off the top of my head. The options are only limited by your imagination but the definitions are clearly defined. 'Man's artistic interpretation of the works of nature' and not 'Man's artistic interpretation of the works of man' which I think :huh: is what Park Hill and a pile of bricks is.
All art is man-made, none of it is "natural", so all artists, not just Picasso, counteract nature in an atempt to create something of beauty/meaning.

Oh dear.....you really should remember what you said.
'Everything is art' I recall you saying. Now you're saying that only man can make art.
However I agree with you, but the example that I've stated above that you used to justify your position has counteraction as just one of an artists tools. So again you're contradicting yourself nick.

Again, just because a pile of bricks doesn't do anything for you, and you don't think it's artistic doesn't mean it's not.

So let's see if I can get something with a bit more substance from you.
Could you please explain to me what or where the artistic flair is in a pile of bricks? Just so I can understand you a bit better. Thanks.

If someone piled the bricks in the form of a tree or flower would that make it art in your eyes because it looks like something you recognize ?

P.s. You could put across your view wthout all the personal digs and swipes, just a thought.

Where have you both gone, it was keeping me entertained reading your opinions?

Where have you both gone, it was keeping me entertained reading your opinions?

Been very busy today.:gag: I'll be back tonight.

I can barely contain my excitement.

If someone piled the bricks in the form of a tree or flower would that make it art in your eyes because it looks like something you recognize ?

Of course, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be something that I recognise. It just has to show some kind of skill and artistic flair (which I've noticed you still haven't given me your definition or understanding of the term) rather than just being an idea that nobody has had before and then, hey presto, I'm going to put it in a gallery and call it art.

P.s. You could put across your view wthout all the personal digs and swipes, just a thought.

Sorry. It wasn't meant to be a dig or a swipe......just an observation.

walked past there today

more like citadel of ****e

that last word was s h i t e

Of course, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be something that I recognise. It just has to show some kind of skill and artistic flair (which I've noticed you still haven't given me your definition or understanding of the term) rather than just being an idea that nobody has had before and then, hey presto, I'm going to put it in a gallery and call it art.



Sorry. It wasn't meant to be a dig or a swipe......just an observation.

I like abstract pictures which many people don't like. There's no artist who I particularly like but, generally, it's about composition, colours,and appeal factor to me.
A picture/painting doesn't have to resemble anything to me like looking to "see what it looks like" in a Rolf Harris type of way, just if it appeals to me.
Now, I see no artistic appeal in Park Hill Flats because to me it's an ugly building not a work of art, it was built to house people way back when our Council jumped on this silly idea of building in the sky. However, I can see appeal in buildings around the city centre which were great feats of engineering for their time and, again were built for a purpose but, their designers had vison in creating something of beauty in their artistic merits.
Personally, I think someone is having a laugh with Park Hill Flats "Citadel Of Light" in a Tracy Emin kind of way!

Of course, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be something that I recognise. It just has to show some kind of skill and artistic flair (which I've noticed you still haven't given me your definition or understanding of the term) rather than just being an idea that nobody has had before and then, hey presto, I'm going to put it in a gallery and call it art.


You assume that the artist who makes a pile of bricks hasn't put as muich thought and effort in the placing of those bricks as the artist who does an oil painting.

I don't realy have a "definition" of art, to do that would limit it to things that fit my definition, rather I look at everything that claims to be art and think "I like that" or "I dont' like that", "I understand that" or "I don't get it". I don't think "that does not meet the criteria of rule #3 of my definition, therefore it is not art, and I will not like it".

An artist is someone who sets out to creates art, they don't have to have a GCSE in painting or a City & Guilds in sculpture, thats the point, anyone can do it, some people might be good at it, most people won't be.

"Having an idea that nobody has had before and, hey presto, it's art" is how art (and most other things) moves foreward, without people having new ideas and trying new things out (some of which work and some of which don't) we would still be looking at paintings of fat half naked chicks on sofas (Botticelli) or endless landscapes with peasants and cows (Turner) by gas light.

The Park Hill thing didn't realy work, but I totaly support their effort in at least trying it.

I agree with nick2 on this one. Art (visual) is simply a framed view that the artist wishes to be looked at. In essence, saying 'Look at this the way I see it.'

Quality doesn't enter into it. A toddler's portrait of her mum and dad is art, as is the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, as is a photograph of people in the high street, as is a light show on the side of a building, etc, etc.

A view of the Peak District is not art. But when the artist represents it in a painting or photographs it or films it, it becomes art. Similarly, the side of a building is not art, but when someone lights it up and says 'look at this', it becomes art.

When I pull the weeds up in my garden, I'm a gardener. When I cycle to work, I'm a cyclist. When I draw a picture for my daughter, I'm an artist. Whether or not I could earn a living doing any of these things is irrelevant.

You assume that the artist who makes a pile of bricks hasn't put as muich thought and effort in the placing of those bricks as the artist who does an oil painting.

I don't assume. I simply know that to be the case. He will have put some thought into it but not as much as a genuine artist will have put into their work. We can all arrange a pile of bricks. Builders do it every day and I don't know one who would call themselves an artist. In fact if you were to call them one you'd probably end up under 6 foot of concrete.:D

I don't realy have a "definition" of art, to do that would limit it to things that fit my definition, rather I look at everything that claims to be art and think "I like that" or "I dont' like that", "I understand that" or "I don't get it". I don't think "that does not meet the criteria of rule #3 of my definition, therefore it is not art, and I will not like it".

I don't think the extensive definition of art that I provided would limit anybody's creativity (not my definition). It simply gives clear guidance to the lay person about what's required from an artist or a piece of artwork to enable it to be called art. Whether you like it or not, understand it or not is irrelavent. It's about allowing the lay person to make an informed decision. That's what definitions are there for. To help people not to hinder them.

An artist is someone who sets out to creates art, they don't have to have a GCSE in painting or a City & Guilds in sculpture, thats the point, anyone can do it, some people might be good at it, most people won't be.

I totally agree that you don't need to have a qualification to be an artist. David Beckham's a good footballer but, as far as I know, he doesn't have a GCSE in football. Of course anybody can create a piece of art, be it good or bad, but it still doesn't make them an artist. Like Mr Beckham I can kick a football but it doesn't make me a footballer. To become a footballer (amateur or professional) I would need to train regularly, play in competitive games, learn about tactics, join a league etc. If I'm simply just knocking the ball around in the park with the kids then I definately am playing football but I'm definately not a footballer. I hope the difference is plain to see.

"Having an idea that nobody has had before and, hey presto, it's art" is how art (and most other things) moves foreward, without people having new ideas and trying new things out (some of which work and some of which don't) we would still be looking at paintings of fat half naked chicks on sofas (Botticelli) or endless landscapes with peasants and cows (Turner) by gas light.

I don't disagree with you on ideas being important. But for it to become art the idea needs to be implemented in a creative, artistic way otherwise it simply remains an idea and is quickly dismissed as being a work of art by the majority of society who see through the facade and it quickly fades away, whereas art that fits the definition simply keeps on going.

The Park Hill thing didn't realy work, but I totaly support their effort in at least trying it.

Is that just your opinion or are you 'limiting this "artwork" to your definition' of what does or doesn't work?
Do you see what I mean nick. We all make judgements and have definitions of things in life that we have to adhere to whether we like it or not.;)

I agree with nick2 on this one. Art (visual) is simply a framed view that the artist wishes to be looked at. In essence, saying 'Look at this the way I see it.'

That seems to be quite a limited definition of (visual) art. What if the artist doesn't want you to 'Look at the picture the way he/she sees it. Would it still be art under your definition? Maybe the artist wants you to see things in a way that is only interpreted by you as an individual?

Quality doesn't enter into it. A toddler's portrait of her mum and dad is art, as is the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, as is a photograph of people in the high street, as is a light show on the side of a building, etc, etc.

Quality simply helps you distinguish between good, bad or indifferent art. It doesn't determine whether you are an artist or not. Two of the above examples that you give can be classed as art but may not necessarily be so.The toddler's drawing and the Cistine Chapel definitely is art.

A view of the Peak District is not art. But when the artist represents it in a painting or photographs it or films it, it becomes art. Similarly, the side of a building is not art, but when someone lights it up and says 'look at this', it becomes art.

Totally agree with your first point here. As for your second point; 'the side of a building is not art? Is architecture not an art form? I think you need to rethink that statement.

When I pull the weeds up in my garden, I'm a gardener. When I cycle to work, I'm a cyclist. When I draw a picture for my daughter, I'm an artist. Whether or not I could earn a living doing any of these things is irrelevant.

When you're pulling weeds up you are weeding the garden. You are maintaining your patch of land. It is a gardening chore and you are certainly doing an aspect of gardening but it certainly doesn't make you a gardener. You are simply a person doing some weeding. The definition of a gardener, like an artist, is quite extensive so to simply say that when 'you pick weeds you are a gardener' demeans and shows a lack of respect to the enthusiastic, talented and knowledgable people out there who are genuine gardeners and have become adept at most if not all of the criteria that go to define the term gardener.
If you cycle regularly to work and back, for fitness or for pleasure then you certainly are a cyclist. The definition of a cyclist is very narrow. Something along the lines of; 'Cyclist......somebody who rides a pedal powered two wheeled vehicle'.
When you're drawing a picture for your daughter you again are using certain artistic tools. You are using a recognised artististic technique. You are playing at being an artist for a reason, to teach your child how to draw. That doesn't make you an artist.
It's the same as if you're looking for a credit card with the lowest interest rate over the longest period of time. Do you then shout.......HURRAY I'm a mathematician. Of course not. You are simply using an aspect of maths to put you in a better financial position.
Or HURRAY........I know how to make beans on toast so I must be a chef. Hmmm:huh:. I don't think so somehow.
Finally, your last statement is spot on. You don't have to be a professional to become any of the above.

I don't think the extensive definition of art that I provided would limit anybody's creativity (not my definition). It simply gives clear guidance to the lay person about what's required from an artist or a piece of artwork to enable it to be called art. Whether you like it or not, understand it or not is irrelavent. It's about allowing the lay person to make an informed decision. That's what definitions are there for. To help people not to hinder them.

The "lay person" doesn't need guidance as to what is/isn't art, the "lay person" can make their own minds-up. Who are you to offer guidance anyway ? what qualifications do you have to decide what is or isn't art ? If kicking a football around doesn't make you a footballer then simply having an opinion on art doesn't make one an art expert.

You are basing your guidance on your own personal view of what art is, advising other people that "this is what art is" will only encourage them to think like you, not for themselves.

When you're drawing a picture for your daughter you again are using certain artistic tools. You are using a recognised artististic technique. You are playing at being an artist for a reason, to teach your child how to draw. That doesn't make you an artist.

This is where we disagree, I think drawing a picture for your daughter does make you an artist, just not a famous one, and your daughter drawing you a picture makes her an artist, unless she is copying something she is using all the same skills a "real artist" (your classification, not mine) would use, just at a different level of competence.

Look at this drawing of an owl by Picasso - http://web.mit.edu/elex/www/secret_directory/Le%20Hibou!.jpg.

Picasso is undeniably a great artist, but this looks like a child has drawn it, so does that mean it's not art, and he is not an artist, and if a child drew a similar picture whould that mean he/she was as great an artist as Picasso ?

You can't aply rules to art, it can't be restricted and put into little near boxes like that.

The "lay person" doesn't need guidance as to what is/isn't art, the "lay person" can make their own minds-up. Who are you to offer guidance anyway ? what qualifications do you have to decide what is or isn't art ? If kicking a football around doesn't make you a footballer then simply having an opinion on art doesn't make one an art expert.

Of course they don't need guidance. If they don't mind being conned then all well and good but the guidance that a definition offers them is there if they wish to access it. If the lay person has seeked guidance and they are confident that they are looking at a bonafide piece of art then they can make a decision on whether it is good, bad or mediocre and make an informed judgement on whether they like it or not.
'What qualifications do I have to decide what is or isn't art?' The only 'qualification' that anybody needs is a little something called common sense and when I've been involved in, and dedicated myself to, a certain aspect of the art world for most of the last 25 years then I feel my opinions are worth airing.
However you are right. Simply having an opinion on art doesn't make one an art expert. Having knowledge, expertise and an understanding of the subject does.

You are basing your guidance on your own personal view of what art is, advising other people that "this is what art is" will only encourage them to think like you, not for themselves.

At the risk of repeating myself. The definition I provided for you was not mine.

This is where we disagree, I think drawing a picture for your daughter does make you an artist, just not a famous one, and your daughter drawing you a picture makes her an artist, unless she is copying something she is using all the same skills a "real artist" (your classification, not mine) would use, just at a different level of competence.

No. The daughter is developing her artistic skills so that one day she may become an artist. The parent is simply showing her various artistic techniques that she/he has picked up over a life time. Of course the parent may very well be an artist if she/he has developed a wide range of skills and techniques that enable the parent to become one. Of course both the parent and child can make art (whether good, bad or indifferent) but that still doesn't make them an artist.

Look at this drawing of an owl by Picasso - http://web.mit.edu/elex/www/secret_directory/Le%20Hibou!.jpg.

Picasso is undeniably a great artist, but this looks like a child has drawn it, so does that mean it's not art, and he is not an artist, and if a child drew a similar picture whould that mean he/she was as great an artist as Picasso ?

One of the things that enables Picasso to call himself an artist is that he dedicated himself to his art and developed his talent. Quality is not an issue. As I've said before, art can be good, bad or indifferent. The fact that it looks like a child's drawing is irrelevent.

You can't aply rules to art, it can't be restricted and put into little near boxes like that.

Your statement 'Picasso is undeniably a great artist' seems like you're putting somebody into a little neat box nick. You see we all do it nick.....apply certain rules in life and restict things like you've just done with that statement. It makes things a lot clearer for everybody.

Of course both the parent and child can make art (whether good, bad or indifferent) but that still doesn't make them an artist.


This is something on which we will obviously never agree.

I don't see how someone can make art and not be an artist, until one day, after a certain amount of time or something special happens, and they become an "artist".

The idea that people arn't artists until you or someone else says they are is quite depressing IMO.

This is something on which we will obviously never agree.

I don't see how someone can make art and not be an artist, until one day, after a certain amount of time or something special happens, and they become an "artist".

The idea that people arn't artists until you or someone else says they are is quite depressing IMO.

How many analogies do you want me to give you?
Gardener, footballer, chef, mathametition, cyclist. They all have clear definitions. What makes art so special that it can defy a definition. As long as the definition is extensive enough then I really don't see a problem.

As long as the definition is extensive enough then I really don't see a problem.

So lets agree on the definition of "artist" as "anyone who creates art" and "art" as "anything created by an artist" ?

After that it's all down to personal taste.

So lets agree on the definition of "artist" as "anyone who creates art" and "art" as "anything created by an artist" ?

Art is; 'anything created by an artist'? What happens when the artist is sat on the toilet? Is he/she creating art then?:D
The definition of art already exists and can be clearly understood.
I think you need to understand the term definition. What you've stated above is more rhetorical than definitive.

Are you two still sorting this one out? I haven't looked on here for a day, come back on and there you are, it's like Groundhog Day!

Art is; 'anything created by an artist'? What happens when the artist is sat on the toilet? Is he/she creating art then?:D


If his/her intention is to create a piece of art then yes, otherwise he's just taking a dump.

eg.

http://www.fineart.ac.uk/works.php?imageid=bt0005

some pics on here...

http://flickr.com/groups/sheffield/discuss/72157603915387749/

THAT'S PATHETIC!!!

It wasn't brilliant, I'd have prefered pictures projected on it, but I see what she was trying to do.

A few years ago I was standing on the platform at the station and an ol' dear came up to me asking directions. I helped her as best I could and then she looked up and pointed towards Park Hill and asked "is that Sheffield Prison".

Looks like they put the finishing touches on with the flood lights, ROTFLMFAO!!!

If his/her intention is to create a piece of art then yes, otherwise he's just taking a dump.

eg.

http://www.fineart.ac.uk/works.php?imageid=bt0005

Don't forget you said 'anything'. Not 'anything with intention'. So again not only are you contradicting yourself but putting something into a nice, neat little box.

Don't forget you said 'anything'. Not 'anything with intention'. So again not only are you contradicting yourself but putting something into a nice, neat little box.

Stop being so pedantic, you know what I meant.

Any comments on Helen Chadwick's sculptures ? Is she a real artist ?

Is she a real artist ?

Absolutely. Just look at her CV. Do I like the work shown on your link? I'll leave you to ponder that one.;)

A few years ago I was standing on the platform at the station and an ol' dear came up to me asking directions. I helped her as best I could and then she looked up and pointed towards Park Hill and asked "is that Sheffield Prison".

Looks like they put the finishing touches on with the flood lights, ROTFLMFAO!!!

That's what occurred to me when I saw it; just plain white light like some kind of security lighting! I would have preferred a projection of pictures/changing colours throughout the night; but altogether it was fun, and I took some photos of it; also, it was a great shame that it was for one night only; I am often working away from Sheffield, so I was lucky I saw it; it would have been better value to have it running for a week or more; but as far as I can tell, the logistics of setting it up and running it required it to be manned by a crew throughout the night who started it up and took it down at the end of the night, which would have made it impractical to run for more than one night...:roll: