Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

WARNING - Post contains cultural content

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by HB, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. I know this may not appeal to a lot of people, but had to share, these amazing art works

    By paper artist Calvin Nicholls.
    There is nothing simple or ordinary about his paper art.
    Where we would simply use a piece of paper and a pair of scissors,
    Calvin uses everything you could possibly think of to carve,
    Cut and rip perfect details onto his creations.
    The motifs are all wildlife, and that must be one of the hardest
    Categories of things to make with paper since there are
    Sometimes impossible details on animals.
    These details are amazing and I can't even fathom the time it
    Must have taken to create these masterpieces of art.







  2. It's good stuff, but where's the culture?
  3. All technique, an "artist" with nothing to say.
  4. I think they're beautiful.
  5. Those are quite impressive. I'd happily hang them on my wall.

    Now if he teamed up with an airbrusher and added colour, that would be brilliant.
  6. Better than an "artist" with everything to say and no technique.
  7. I'm all for politically motivated art, but I don't think art should necessarily be subordinated to politics.

    Either way, I thought to choose paper as a medium, something intrinsically associated with fragility, and to restrict oneself to depicting animals, was a sufficiently political statement, corpus taken as a whole.

    That said, I don't like the lion as portrait. Too CS Lewis for mine, especially after the doves... and the beavers.

    If there is anything to object to, it's the tendency toward twee sentimentality.
  8. Hmm, thinking CS Lewis does change the lion potrait...

    Twee sentimentality or crass commercialism? Notwithstanding my previous comment, they're a little bit too similar to the tacky tiger/wolf/dophin prints flogged at markets for my liking.
  9. Both. The rendering of the sparrows is reminiscent of those little porcelain objet d'art old women collect...

    That, and the blue and white jasperware shit with the white set in relief on a light blue background.

    I can't stand that stuff.
  10. No, not both. Sentimental certainly, but unless they are produced purely for profit by paid labour or machine - or with the expectation of profit beyond the value of the effort involved, the charge of commercialism is unfounded.

    There is no escaping intent. I guess these things are made for the love of the process. And if some 'little old lady' finds delight in that, then there is no more harm in it than the slight deflation of some aesthete's ego.
  11. Your quite right, Titus. I was intending the style rather than the motivation - in that the style is reminiscent of with commercially produced objects, one's specifically made with commercial intent - but I agree with you in that you're right to point out that commercialism can't be his primary motivation.
  12. Hope he's using archival quality paper or they'll be developing a bad case of mange in a few years :D.

    They're craft rather than art. Very good craft, but craft nonetheless. Love the technique though.

    Not that I'm denigrating craft. Far from it. With MrsB as a professional artist with a family background of highly skilled craftsmen, I have some familiarity with the craft vs. art debate.

    There has certainly been a tendency in the art world to denigrate anything that is excessively technique based or "process driven" as being unworthy and this has led some to a rigid belief that if it's not ragged as fuck, with the artist's thumbprints still in it, it can't be art. This attitude has been particularly enthusiastically fostered by those who would call themselves artists but who have zero practical skills and so are incapable of producing anything of greater technical merit than the average 10 year old.

    However, the tide may just be turning. The tendency towards the badly made (however valid the intended statements) has resulted in an awful lot of collectors spending a shitload of money on artworks that, 10 years down the line, have disintegrated into a pile of soggy cardboard (or whatever). MrsB has noticed an increasing willingness on the part of buyers (and, if you're a professional, ie in it to make at least a living, it's the buyers not the academics who count) to invest in pieces made to a high technical standard whilst still having something to say.
  13. Don't like Bob Dylan's singing, eh? To be honest I think I was reacting to the thread title elevating the cool paper sculptures to "culture", rather than the works themselves. It is all about context. People have done life-like sculpture for quite a while now -- if somebody re-did "David" it would not be "art" but just slavish imitation. It would still be impressive.
  14. Singing? Not particularly. Lyrics? Yes.

    Now that you mention it, though, I'm having to reconsider my statement taking music into account. Think Sex Pistols vs. Bieber...
  15. great work, anyone got a match?
  16. When you said 'culture' I thought you meant something like this:
  17. At least it wasn`t a religious thing. I agree on the mind boggling amount of work and precision,Even the hole concept of art .Its beyond me , I know, i get to watch my bro just pull it out his a$$
  18. Gop Gop was a better song.
  19. Thanks again.

    I only just got Kajagoogoo out of my head.......](*,)
  20. Really Reesa, shame on you. Makes me want to go bang my head against a tree.

    Yep, she a serial offender.

    I wonder if the sculptures we carved out of marble or even clay would that make them more acceptable as artwork.