Lost his marbles

[Gob]

A sculptor who planned to throw one million stones into the sea as part of a massive art project has had to give up half way through - because he ran out of money.

Pete Codling has spent 16 years travelling from his home to the seafront laden with pebbles he baked in a kiln.
The 40-year-old would visit the beach every weekend in the summer to chuck the numbered stones into the water. However, he will bring the One Million Pebbles project to an end this weekend having fulfilled only half the target after funding dried up.

Mr Codling, from Hayling Island, Hampshire, said: 'It started it in 1994 as a giant artwork, the idea being it would be subversively hidden there on the beach for other generations to find.' Mr Codling has thrown the stones into the Solent and they have washed up at Southsea, Hayling and Stokes Bay. The man-made stones are different shapes and sizes and imprinted with serial numbers, patterns and messages. They have caused a great deal of bafflement for beachcombers over the years, who are unaware of what the mysterious stones are or where they came from.

The stones have been picked up and taken around the world and deposited on other beaches by holidaymakers.
Mr Codling holds up three of the pebbles he made for his art project, each with its own individual message, which has been going on 16 years. The most Mr Codling could produce was around 500,000, because it takes so much time to stamp each one and bake them in a kiln.

Money for the wacky project, which cost thousands of pounds and came from local authorities, sponsors and the Arts Council, has now run out. He will throw the final pebbles into the water off Southsea this Friday.
He said: 'I have a small handful of buckets left to throw. I've been going back and forwards to the beach between the pier and the Pyramids. 'They're all in the shingle, mixed up with other pebbles for generations to come, until Portsmouth goes under water.

'It's probably one of the largest truly public works of art around. It's a genuinely massive project. 'It was about making the beach a monument for the people, by the people.' The sculptor added: 'I started this as an idealistic artist in my twenties. It's been the longest relationship I've ever had.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0p4wbNBaZ

[tyro]

You see?

The problem with art funding is that boneheads start to take themselves too seriously and then they discover that they have no real talents other then to make pebbles.


We have a lot as it is. Putting a number on each one doesn’t help me appreciate the pebble.

In fact, I bet the natural pebbles are more interesting.



I am not a number! I’m a pebble!

[Gob]

I totally agree with you Tyro...


Just to make matters worse, I can't get this bloody song out of my head now.

Just take a pebble and cast it to the sea,
Then watch the ripples that unfold into me,
My face spill so gently into your eyes,
Disturbing the waters of our lives.

Shread of our memories are lying on your grass;
Wounded words of laughter are graveyards of the past.
Photographs are grey and torn, scattered in your fields
Letters of your mem'ries are not real.

Sadness on your shoulders like a wornout overcoat
In pockets creased and tattered hang the rags of your hope.
The daybreak is your midnight; the colours have all died.
Disturbing the waters of our lives, of our lives, of our lives, lives,
lives, lives...
Of our lives.

[Sue U]

Oh, I dunno; it's whimsical, and I'm a fan of whimsy. Do you like Duchamp? Man Ray? Dali? Yoko Ono?

[Gob]

Oh, I dunno; it's whimsical, and I'm a fan of whimsy. Do you like Duchamp? Man Ray? Dali? Yoko Ono?

I'm a big fan of whimsy, but not on the taxpayers dollar

[Sue U]

Why not? What kind of art do you think is appropriate for public support? Why?

[Gob]

Very little art should be publically funded.

If the local councils want to waste ££££ thousands on a man throwing home made stones into the sea, then they should have asked the electors permission to do it.

Any large scale, or costly, public art should be proposed and community feedback taken into account before money is spent.

[Andrew D]

Funding for the arts may be the only rational argument for aristocracy. (Please note that by describing an argument as rational, I am not opining that it should prevail.) Arts funding by the obscenely wealthy -- obscenely because of the ways by which that wealth was acquired -- has given us everything from Michelangelo to Mozart. Public funding has given us everything from painted pebbles thrown into oceans to sidewalk "art" that resembles giant turds. (That seems to be a popular theme; it's as if some preternaturally large and incontinent dog has been wandering the western world.)

What kind of art do you think is appropriate for public support? Why?

At a minimum, the art paid for by the public should be art that the public experiences positively. Not "art" to which most of the public responds by saying "what the fuck is that?"

There was a time when I fell for the claim that classical music (broadly speaking) was an elitist thing in which most ordinary people are not interested. Wrong.

Drop by one of San Francisco's downtown MUNI (subway) stations when a string quartet is playing Bach or Haydn or Beethoven. Perfectly ordinary people from all walks of life stop and listen, enraptured by a burst of beauty in their otherwise humdrum commutes.

Hang out in that part -- whose name lamentably escapes me at the moment -- of Golden Gate Park between the DeYoung Museum and the science thing (planetarium, etc.). Listen to people's reactions to the statuary around there. Then hang out on that part of Market Street which is host to that monstrosity composed of rectangular tubing that looks like detritus from some failed attempt to repair the sewage system. Listen to people's reactions to that.

If we are going to use public funds for the arts, we should use them for the arts from which most members of the public derive pleasure. We should not use it for the arts from which most members of the public derive indifference, confusion, or revulsion.

[Jarlaxle]

Why not? What kind of art do you think is appropriate for public support? Why?

None at all. It's money down a rat hole...I'd rather they put the cash in a pile and burn it.

[The Hen]

Why not? What kind of art do you think is appropriate for public support? Why?

None at all. It's money down a rat hole...I'd rather they put the cash in a pile and burn it.

Didn't Tracy Emin already do that? After she finished making her unmade bed project?

[Sue U]

Of course, much art that is now widely regarded as beautiful, masterful and seminal was, at the time of its creation, widely reviled by the public. The examples are boundless. And of course, not every obscure artist turns out to be Monet, Duchamp, Chagall, Brancusi or Stravinsky.

I don't claim to know much of anything about the visual arts or the theory behind contemporary styles, but I am often amazed by the capacity of art I encounter to affect me. I remember the first time I saw an Anselm Kiefer work: I had no idea who the guy was or what specific themes he was addressing, but the painting hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks; the impact was so powerful and visceral that I literally had to sit down.

As for the historical role of aristocracy and the church in the arts, you realize of course that dependence on such sources meant that great artists were often limited to painting trite family portraits and Biblical scenes or composing dinner entertainments and Masses, rather than advancing their craft or exploring more exotic aspects of their culture. Certainly great work was done within these formats, but the function of the artist was to create a work pleasing to the patron more than to exercise creative genius.

Andrew, you may like string quartets at the transit stop, but a quartet is never going to be able to support itself busking at the BART. Why wouldn't you want some public support thrown their way for the sake of improving and beautifying the lives of all citizens? One day they may be playing Beethoven, the next Xenakis, then Messiaen -- who knows, after sufficient exposure you might even grow to like Carter. Especially compared to so many other things that government does, funding for the arts costs so very little and can positively touch so many.

[tyro]

Jarlaxle, since you would rather burn money than have it go to the arts, how do you feel about public money going to sports?

Let’s face it, the two (arts and sports) are very similar in that they hold no real value whatsoever except for those who appreciate them.

Since I appreciate the arts more than government supported sports, and since I think too much public money is misspent on arts (the OP is an excellent example), you can expect that I am appalled by how much goes into sports.

[The Hen]

Gob and I saw this work of Duchamp the other day. It is one of my favourites.



The hat rack is suspended high up on the ceiling well out of your notice. It has a light shining behind it.

Your attention is first drawn to the work by reading the plaque announcing that you are looking at Duchamp's Hat Rack and when it was created. You look around and you see the shadow of the hat rack. You then need to find where the shadow emanates from\. I love a piece which involves the audience.

[Gob]

Why not? What kind of art do you think is appropriate for public support? Why?

None at all. It's money down a rat hole...I'd rather they put the cash in a pile and burn it.

Didn't Tracy Emin already do that? After she finished making her unmade bed project?

Nah, not Emin, the KLF..

K Foundation Burn a Million Quid was an action that took place on 23 August 1994, in which the K Foundation (an art duo consisting of Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty) burned one million pounds sterling in cash on the Scottish island of Jura. This money represented the bulk of the K Foundation's funds, earned by Drummond and Cauty as The KLF, one of the United Kingdom's most successful pop groups of the early 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundati ... llion_Quid

Of course, much art that is now widely regarded as beautiful, masterful and seminal was, at the time of its creation, widely reviled by the public. The examples are boundless. And of course, not every obscure artist turns out to be Monet, Duchamp, Chagall, Brancusi or Stravinsky.

None of whom had an art council grant for hundreds of thousands of pounds to produce it.

Here's some examples of what public money in Canberra has been spent on;



The broken pylon.



The broken clock.



The WTF?

[Crackpot]

that one is called "pipes screensaver"

[Jarlaxle]

Jarlaxle, since you would rather burn money than have it go to the arts, how do you feel about public money going to sports?

Exactly the same. No public money should be wasted there, either.

[Jarlaxle]

Gob: is it a bad thing that when I see those abortions (especially the first & last one), the first thought that pops into my head is, "Damn...there's enough scrap there I could pay for my vacation."

[Andrew D]

As for the historical role of aristocracy and the church in the arts, you realize of course that dependence on such sources meant that great artists were often limited to painting trite family portraits and Biblical scenes or composing dinner entertainments and Masses, rather than advancing their craft or exploring more exotic aspects of their culture. Certainly great work was done within these formats, but the function of the artist was to create a work pleasing to the patron more than to exercise creative genius.

That is considerably overstated. Many of the great classical composers composed with their general audiences very much in mind. For example, here is a bit from a letter written by Mozart about his "Paris" Symphony (No. 31 (K. 297):

I prayed God it might go well, dedicating all to His greater honor and glory, and ecce! -- the symphony began! [A friend] stood near me, and in the midst of the first allegro came a passage I had known would please. The audience was quite carried away -- there was a great outburst of applause. But, since I knew when I wrote it that it would make a sensation, I had brought it in again in the last -- and then it came again, da capo!

"The andante also found favor, but particularly the last allegro because, having noticed that all last allegri here opened, like the first, with all instruments together and usually in unison, I began with two violins only, piano for eight bars only, then forte, so that at the piano (as I had expected) the audience said "Sh!" and when they heard the forte began at once to clap their hands.

There are numerous other such examples. Of course artists had to take care to please their patrons, but bringing in paying audiences was a very good way of doing so.

(And occasionally, there was an aristocrat who was himself a great composer. Carlo Gesualdo, for example, pushed the contrapuntal and harmonic envelopes quite far in his madrigals; he could do so because he did not have to answer to the tastes of any patron. Still, even he he tailored various of his compositions to public tastes. (See, e.g., his Responsoria for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday.))

As to "exploring more exotic aspects of their culture," it seems to me that Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies (especially the fourth) and Hungarian Fantasy speak for themselves. Aren't Hugarian Gypsy folk songs pretty exotic aspects of the European culture prevailing at the time?

I also take exception to the apparent implication that because "great artists were often limited to ... composing dinner entertainments and Masses," they were stifled in their "exercise [of] creative genius." Restrictions in form do not necessarily stifle an artist's creativity; often, they bring it out. Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli and Missa pro defunctis are widely recognized as great works. Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks was composed to accompany an entertainment, but it is widely recognized as a great work. And to put a more modern feel on it, Faure's Requiem (which is a Mass -- a Mass for the Dead) is also widely recognized as a great work.

Stepping away from music for a moment, the Elizabethan Sonnet is very (though not absolutely) strict in form. Nonetheless, Shakespeare produced Elizabethan Sonnets in which his creative genius was anything but stifled. In the metaphorical hands of a great artist, restrictions of form do not stifle creative genius; on the contrary, by channeling creative genius, they bring it to glorious fruition.

Andrew, you may like string quartets at the transit stop ....

My point was not what I like. Not many kids grow up as deeply immersed as I was in classical (broadly speaking) music. My point was that such music is immediately appealing to many -- in my experience, the considerable majority of -- people unfamiliar with it.

That is exactly what is wrong with so much of the art that is funded with taxpayers' dollars: Rather than being immediately appealing, it is immediately appalling. "Art" which elicits such responses, even from children, as "Mommy, why is there a really big poo on the sidewalk?" is not art which the taxpayers should have to support. (That, by the way, is the real reason why we ought not to fund (even the exhibition of) such things as "Piss Christ" -- not because they may offend some people's religious sensibilities, but because they are crap.)

Why wouldn't you want some public support thrown their way for the sake of improving and beautifying the lives of all citizens? One day they may be playing Beethoven, the next Xenakis, then Messiaen -- who knows, after sufficient exposure you might even grow to like Carter. Especially compared to so many other things that government does, funding for the arts costs so very little and can positively touch so many.

Public funding for music is, in my opinion, badly misdirected. Rather than publicly funding the performance (and composition) of music -- excepting the public funding of free concerts, which allow the impecunious to share in what they would otherwise be mostly deprived of -- if we really are interested in "improving and beautifying the lives of all citizens," we should take all of that funding and redirect it into musical education for children.

It seems to me that when I was growing up (the 1960s and 1970s), music education and arts education generally were staples in the public schools. It seems to me that they have become rarities in the public schools. We should change that before we start spending money on making the performances of symphonies cheaper for those who could already afford it without the subsidies but still unaffordable for most people.

[Gob]

Andrew, is it not also true that a great many early classical compositions, now known as great art, were done to please patrons who were paying for them/sponsoring them, and flatter their tastes, rather than to be high art?

[Andrew D]

I do not dispute that many composers tailored their compositions to flatter the tastes of their patrons. But we should not forget that many of those patrons had, in fact, really good taste. It was not accidental that Bach, Vivaldi, etc., were chosen by their patrons: Their patrons recognized brilliance when they saw it.

Most publicly funded modern "art," on the other hand is not funded by people who actually have good taste. That, of course, is subjective, but these days, the decisions do not appear to be made on the basis of anyone's taste in music or sculpture or whatever. These days, the decisions appear (to me, which is, of course, also subjective) to be made on a host of grounds which are not about whether the works at issue look or sound, etc., good. They appear to be made on the basis of what sort of "statement" they make or on the basis of how "cutting edge" they are, and so forth -- grounds which have nothing to do with their intrinsic merits.

I have a personal (therefore, yet again, subjective) guide to art: If it is not appealing until after it has been explained, it is crap. Yes, understanding what the artist was trying to say, the place of the work in the "development" (which is all too often the devolution) of whatever art form it is an example of, and so forth can deepen one's appreciation of the piece. But if the piece is not grabbing in the first place -- even if the grab is not pleasant (Munch's The Scream is not pleasant, but it is immediately affecting) -- then all the explanation in the world will not save it.

I am given to understand that various works by Jackson Pollock involve intricate uses of fractals. So what? It was crap when I looked at it before knowing that, and it is still crap when I look at it after knowing (or being led to believe) that.

I guess that what I am driving at is that aristocratic patronage of the arts -- and, again, this does not mean that I favor aristocracy on the whole -- has historically produced great stuff, whereas public funding of the arts has produced a flood of crap. Crap, crap, crap. Music, painting, sculpture, whatever. Crap.

(P.S. for Sue U: "[A]fter sufficient exposure [ I] might even grow to like Carter"? How sufficient will the exposure have to be for you to grow to enjoy the brilliance of the Pachelbel Canon?)