Jump to content

Festival 2012


Rob.

Recommended Posts

BBC commentator 'Chelle' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15593109) with a positive rating of +19 speaks for me...

"How can these posters promote the olympics when just by looking at most of them you can't actually tell what on earth they're supposed to be about. You need another poster pointing to it with an explanation! Why didn't they have a competition for school children across the country to design posters? I'm sure they would have done a much better job!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply
How can these posters promote the olympics when just by looking at most of them you can't actually tell what on earth they're supposed to be about.

It'll be interesting to see how they're used in their capacity as promotional posters. But I do think, when seen purely as artworks, the need for them to be superficially obvious as to what they're about or what they represent becomes less vital. They're artworks inspired by the Games, rather than merely posters or adverts for the Games, although they will apparently be used as such.

And as I said above, the one which is most obviously connected to Olympic sport - the runner, for me is the least impactful. A few of the more abstract ones encapsulate much more of the spirit of the Games as far as I'm concerned.

As with all these things though, each to their own. Any more opinions? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC commentator 'Chelle' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15593109) with a positive rating of +19 speaks for me...

"How can these posters promote the olympics when just by looking at most of them you can't actually tell what on earth they're supposed to be about. You need another poster pointing to it with an explanation! Why didn't they have a competition for school children across the country to design posters? I'm sure they would have done a much better job!"

I think that if you look back at the posters from Munich, LA, Barcelona, other past Games you'll see that these are right in line with what is normally done. I think the point is to celebrate the art of the host country during the Games than necessarily to use the posters as a form of promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracey Emin, Bird 2012: Just plain silly.

Rachel Whiteread, LOndOn 2012: Apart from the fact it looks like a scattering of rolled up day-glo condoms, I don’t mind it.

Anthea Hamilton, Divers: The most overtly Olympic. Not totally repulsive.

Bridget Riley, Rose, Rose: Father’s Day gift wrapping paper.

Chris Ofili, The Unknown Runner: Were Chris and Tracey Emin drinking together when they cobbled these up on barmats as a lark to send in?

Fiona Banner, Superhuman Nude: Looks like a cover for an old paperback edition of Orwell’s 1984. Then you read the text and realise it’s a porno book.

Martin Creed, Work No. 1273: Is this the one you like Rob? Hmmmm. I’m not feeling the love, but not finding it objectionable either.

Roberto & Roberta Smith, Love: Sigh … It’s a great poster for a community co-op Saturday morning market.

Michael-Craig Martin, GO: Now, this is the one I quite like like. Whimsical, a bit different, British.

Gary Hume, Capital: Looks like something they’d sell in the Ikea kitchen hangings department.

Howard Hodgkin, Swimming: Ooookay …. yeah, I get it, the water’s blue and swirls. That’s it, isn’t it? Next!

Sarah Morris, Big Ben 2012: Actually, don’t mind this too much either. Nice and vibrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely love them. What a great set of artistic posters. No doubt a few of these will be gracing the walls of my home in the next few weeks. I particularly like the Tracy Emin, Rachel Whiteread, Fiona Banner and Howard Hodgkin pieces. I have been frustrated by the typical media onslaught against these. I actually emailed the BBC to point out that this is the artistic set of posters and the brief doesn't require them to promote the games in the way your average event poster would work. Frustrating. These really are some magnificent artistically inspiring pieces of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin Creed, Work No. 1273: Is this the one you like Rob? Hmmmm. I’m not feeling the love, but not finding it objectionable either.

Yep, that's the one. Liked it when I saw it at first glance, loved it when I read what it represents and how Creed came to it as an idea. I just think it works, and there's no mistaking it for anything else (it stands out amongst the set when they're all together). It's the most economical (more than half the canvas is empty), yet also the most powerful.

Won't be spending £500 on one though. Maybe a poster instead! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the posters: These are the worst pieces of art London 2012 released so far: The logo is weird but useful; fine pictograms; unusual but nice mascots; simple but effective olympic medals and brilliant paralympic medals;

Some of the posters look cheap while others border the artistic abstraction people disliked so much in Albertville and Athens.

Huge let down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the posters: These are the worst pieces of art London 2012 released so far: The logo is weird but useful; fine pictograms; unusual but nice mascots; simple but effective olympic medals and brilliant paralympic medals;

Some of the posters look cheap while others border the artistic abstraction people disliked so much in Albertville and Athens.

Huge let down.

I agree. The most amateurish bunch of posters (except #12) I have seen in a long-time, especially coming from a developed country. Obviously, the MORE professional shops did not bother to participate...and this is what one gets -- anateurish, underdeveloped glops of paint and rejected greeting-card entries.

Only 1 standout for me: the last one...Sarah Morris' Big Ben 2012!! Now that is something I would like to buy and hang on my wall!! Just love the colorful art deco look of it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of these posters. I think they look amateurish. But not amateurish in a good way like the Munich '72 posters, but rather amateurish in an artists-can't-paint-or-draw-properly-but-their-crap-skills-are-presented-as-great-when-they-are-really-subpar kinda way.

This whole awkwardly-drawn, looks like a 6-year-old-did-it style of art is hugely popular amongst the snobbish art establishment who think a lack of realism and crudely constructed lines equates with deep and thoughtful art.

Tracy Emin's poster is just a variation upon what she does for a living -- produce badly drawn stuff because she can't draw well but to elevate it to something 'great' it is give it a post-modern crap-is-really-great spin.Her naive line-work is supposedly representative of some deep and profound thought process. Just like her unmade bed........

And that Ofili poster is hideous. The 'runner' looks like Mr Tumnus from the 'Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe' from the chronicles of Narnia series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whiteread is most definitely my favourite, it's pleasing to the eye and obviously has a connection with the Olympics. Hume should be ashamed though, lack of thought, imagination, dreadful colours (As an Olympics poster surely it should have some excitement and bold/bright colours, it's Olympics for God sake!) and it doesn't even have a hint of an Olympic theme as it is! That guy's angered me actually :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as far as Im concerned theres some great ones and some poor ones. Fiona Banner is my favourite with Rachel Whiteread as a second, its Olympic and fun, it made me smile. Tracey Emin, would have been ok is she hadnt tried to draw the logo, makes me wonder if she had the drawing lying around and thought oooh that will do, put a logo on and its sorted. The artist I feel has used his style to create a piece that fits the best is Michael Craig martin. Its in his style but is relevant. I dont like his style though LOL. The Howard Hodgkin one is growing on me, but I can see why the general public would say my 2 year old could do that.

I think my biggest problem is the missed opportunity. Im not 13 so I dont put posters on my wall. I also cant afford the prices of the limited signed prints. Why havent they done a 3rd set, really nicely printed, unsigned at a price thats more affordable. I buy prints from Mondo that are screenprinted for $50 why arnt they tapping into this market.

But Im happy all round with the designs, a good mix, its modern art though so you arnt going to please the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my biggest problem is the missed opportunity. Im not 13 so I dont put posters on my wall.

You don't have art on your walls?

I also cant afford the prices of the limited signed prints. Why havent they done a 3rd set, really nicely printed, unsigned at a price thats more affordable. I buy prints from Mondo that are screenprinted for $50 why arnt they tapping into this market.

Because they'll keep their historical value by being limited prints. They're available for £7 each as printed posters.

its modern art though so you arnt going to please the masses.

Exactly- only Britain could produce such a wide ranging diverse group of artists, and shows why British art is still the most dynamic and important in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have art on my walls thats why Im a bit put out, it just isnt high end prints, its more accessable stuff, Dan Baldwin, Natso Sekki, Olly Moss. Id happily pay more for a good print. I suppose I will have to buy a poster and frame it. I would worry at £7 the quality isnt gonna be great, hopefully I am wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly- only Britain could produce such a wide ranging diverse group of artists, and shows why British art is still the most dynamic and important in the world.

That is simply UNTRUE!

Why do you feel the need to make hyperbolic and untrue statements in order to justify your lovefest with London 2012? It's like you can't take any critique of London 2012 with regards to people giving their views on the aesthetics of the posters, and because you're one of those people who vicariously conflate your own sense of self with the perceived success of London 2012, you're ready to make silly statements to denounce London dissenters.

Are you seriously saying that countries with a more important and influential art-scene --France and Italy to name two, couldn't produce more diverse posters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is simply UNTRUE!

Why do you feel the need to make hyperbolic and untrue statements in order to justify your lovefest with London 2012? It's like you can't take any critique of London 2012 with regards to people giving their views on the aesthetics of the posters, and because you're one of those people who vicariously conflate your own sense of self with the perceived success of London 2012, you're ready to make silly statements to denounce London dissenters.

Are you seriously saying that countries with a more important and influential art-scene --France and Italy to name two, couldn't produce more diverse posters?

As it happens, I'm no art expert and I wonder how true that statement is as well, fair enough on raising that point. But could you PLEASE argue against that statement without resorting to the phycho-analytical bullshit you wrote in your second paragraph? It's comments like this which have made this forum increasingly unpleasant as of late. Do you really think DarJoLe will be in any mood to write a reply as to why he thinks what he said is true after a post like that, because I wouldn't be?

Back on topic, the question of diversity is a good one. Whilst I like a few of these posters quite a lot, as I set I'd say they're not really that diverse at all. They're all what I and others "out of the loop" would call "modern art". Even the most realistic are reliant on a fair amount of abstraction. Perhaps within the niche of modern British art, or if you happen to be in those circles, there is diversity amongst these works, but it seems to me to represent a fairly narrow range of what is possible.

Couldn't we have got Davey to design one? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it happens, I'm no art expert and I wonder how true that statement is as well, fair enough on raising that point. But could you PLEASE argue against that statement without resorting to the phycho-analytical bullshit you wrote in your second paragraph? It's comments like this which have made this forum increasingly unpleasant as of late. Do you really think DarJoLe will be in any mood to write a reply as to why he thinks what he said is true after a post like that, because I wouldn't be?

Back on topic, the question of diversity is a good one. Whilst I like a few of these posters quite a lot, as I set I'd say they're not really that diverse at all. They're all what I and others "out of the loop" would call "modern art". Even the most realistic are reliant on a fair amount of abstraction. Perhaps within the niche of modern British art, or if you happen to be in those circles, there is diversity amongst these works, but it seems to me to represent a fairly narrow range of what is possible.

Couldn't we have got Davey to design one? B)

Rob, how about you use your account to post YOUR thoughts? And I'll use mine to post mine? This habit you have of trying to tell me what to write or how to write it is frankly a little bit arrogant on your part. I made my post -- it was respectful and questioning. Therefore, I'm not changing anything. You'll just need to accept that or not. That's your choice.

As ever Rob, you have utterly failed to see my point, not that you have to. The poster Darjole made an unsubstantiated, nationalistic claim without merit, exalting Britain's supposed superior art virtues to every other nation on earth. I questioned that notion as I think it's quite an arrogant statement to make.

Therefore, you are wrong to say I'm not questioning the statement -- that's exactly what I did.When such statements fly about, there's a reason for doing it. Since the statement was wrong (as you admit)I then stated why people say such things -- and IT IS because of some sense of nationalistic-egoism intertwined with the Olympics. That's why some people take critiques of the London 2012 Olympics personally which is absurd.

Drjole can reply if he wishes. Or not. That's not for me to ponder or question so please save such questions as I'm simple not concerned with them.

Rob, how about you use your account to post YOUR thoughts? And I'll use mine to post mine? This habit you have of trying to tell me what to write or how to write it is frankly a little bit arrogant on your part. I made my post -- it was respectful and questioning. Therefore, I'm not changing anything. You'll just need to accept that or not. That's your choice.

As ever Rob, you have utterly failed to see my point, not that you have to. The poster Darjole made an unsubstantiated, nationalistic claim without merit, exalting Britain's supposed superior art virtues to every other nation on earth. I questioned that notion as I think it's quite an arrogant statement to make.

Therefore, you are wrong to say I'm not questioning the statement -- that's exactly what I did.When such statements fly about, there's a reason for doing it. Since the statement was wrong (as you admit)I then stated why people say such things -- and IT IS because of some sense of nationalistic-egoism intertwined with the Olympics. That's why some people take critiques of the London 2012 Olympics personally which is absurd.

Drjole can reply if he wishes. Or not. That's not for me to ponder or question so please save such questions as I'm simply not concerned with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it happens, I'm no art expert and I wonder how true that statement is as well, fair enough on raising that point. But could you PLEASE argue against that statement without resorting to the phycho-analytical bullshit you wrote in your second paragraph? It's comments like this which have made this forum increasingly unpleasant as of late. Do you really think DarJoLe will be in any mood to write a reply as to why he thinks what he said is true after a post like that, because I wouldn't be?

Back on topic, the question of diversity is a good one. Whilst I like a few of these posters quite a lot, as I set I'd say they're not really that diverse at all. They're all what I and others "out of the loop" would call "modern art". Even the most realistic are reliant on a fair amount of abstraction. Perhaps within the niche of modern British art, or if you happen to be in those circles, there is diversity amongst these works, but it seems to me to represent a fairly narrow range of what is possible.

Couldn't we have got Davey to design one? B)

It would be a dream commission. Someone raised the point on Skyscrapercity about who gets the money from the prints. As far as Im concerned it would be an honour to be asked but are the artists paid, or do they get part of the sales. The fact that the limited edition prints had various prices makes me think they got a cut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As ever Rob, you have utterly failed to see my point, not that you have to. The poster Darjole made an unsubstantiated, nationalistic claim without merit, exalting Britain's supposed superior art virtues to every other nation on earth. I questioned that notion as I think it's quite an arrogant statement to make.

Therefore, you are wrong to say I'm not questioning the statement -- that's exactly what I did

I got your point completely and happen to agree with the fact that he made that very bold statement and failed to substantiate it. Nor did I say you weren't questioning the statement. You did, but you went beyond that and that's what I have a problem with. You could have simply have asked him to substantiate that claim rather than resorting to the nastiness to which we've all become accusomted to in your posts on this forum. A nastiness that has seen posts specifically about you and your posting style in the Premium Member lounge, might I add. Here's a thought, maybe DarJoLe really believes, and has good reasons to believe, British art is the most diverse and interesting in the world? Why don't you ASK him rather than writing a snide analysis of him and his motives for posting such a statement.

As I said, you were right to call DarJoLe out on that point. I'd like to know why he thinks that as well. It's one thing questioning a statement and asking for reasons (which you did in the first and third parts of your post), it's quite another to then write what you wrote in the second part.

It would be a dream commission. Someone raised the point on Skyscrapercity about who gets the money from the prints. As far as Im concerned it would be an honour to be asked but are the artists paid, or do they get part of the sales. The fact that the limited edition prints had various prices makes me think they got a cut

How would this sort of thing normally work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got your point completely and happen to agree with the fact that he made that very bold statement and failed to substantiate it. Nor did I say you weren't questioning the statement. You did, but you went beyond that and that's what I have a problem with. You could have simply have asked him to substantiate that claim rather than resorting to the nastiness to which we've all become accusomted to in your posts on this forum. A nastiness that has seen posts specifically about you and your posting style in the Premium Member lounge, might I add. Here's a thought, maybe DarJoLe really believes, and has good reasons to believe, British art is the most diverse and interesting in the world? Why don't you ASK him rather than writing a snide analysis of him and his motives for posting such a statement.

As I said, you were right to call DarJoLe out on that point. I'd like to know why he thinks that as well. It's one thing questioning a statement and asking for reasons (which you did in the first and third parts of your post), it's quite another to then write what you wrote in the second part.

1. It's not nastiness to state a fact. And it was a fact that a) stating Britain is the greatest artistic nation on earth is an arrogant statement devoid of proof, B) People, such as Darjole, conflate their sense of pride, egoism etc with the Olympics thus take critiques of London 2012 personally.

So, what's wrong with pointing this out? I didn't say it. I commented on it. That's what forums are about.

p.s Darjole didn't state it as an opinion but rather matter of factly. Read the post again Rob. You're now digging I'm afraid. I still stand by what I said and how I said it.But if you're so concerned, how about you ask him?

2) Instead of asking me to ponder or mind-read if Darjole would want to reply to such a post, did it ever occur to you that people might be put off posting in the London forum when British members like Darjole post such arrogant drivel? Can you see how his post might put some people off? Or do you see that but don't wish to mention it because you've established your line of attack against my perfectly fine post and don't wish to concede you have a skewed reasoning going on?

But hey Rob, get in a hissy fit about me pointing out facts.

Oh, and another thing Rob, I'm aware that your reference to the gossiping you do in the premium members lounge is meant to inspire fear, paranoia etc in me. I simply could not care. People are free to talk. And if they want to talk about me, that's fine.You know I'm not a premium member so your only motivation for saying such a thing is for the reasons aforementioned. As a wise man said, "Let'em talk".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As only a few of the Limited prints were available on the 2012 website, Im thinking the money from the posters and those prints is London 2012's money. Theres then a second website

http://www.countereditions.com/london2012

Im thinking, I may be wrong that this is where the artists are selling the rest and they get that money. Usually For a commission you really would get a fee but then the work would be the property of the person or persons comissioning. That website though, the more they sell of a print the higher the price seems to go, Tracey Emins is now at £1000 where as on Friday it was £400 ish. The really interesting thing is even on that site Bridget Rileys sold out pretty much instantly. A starting price of £800, now listed as £3000 even though you can no longer buy it.

Someones making a lot of money off this. I think I will just frame a £7 poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry my point was a bit blunt, I was trying to say theres a mid ground between £7 posters and Limited edition prints at £800.

I do have posters on my wall but they are screen printed on good stock and not expensive. Theres a mid ground that has been over looked and, I just think its a shame, a real shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...