Why did anyone ever care & why do some still care about the art of Gilbert & George?
 

Until tomorrow, the BBC and Guardian websites are featuring an "exclusive download" of a new work entitled "Planed" by Gilbert & George.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/imagine/article/g_g_planed.shtml

From what I know, these two have put out the same picture for over a generation. Namely, cut-outs of themselves set against a faux-stained glass backdrop. Who gives a shit?

http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/archive/gandg.htm doc here

Why does everything suck?:fuckyou:

When they first started in the late 60's early 70's, they used a variety of media from performance to video.
Since then, their work has consisted predominantly of photo pieces.

G&G have always been both the subject and the object of their art.
Their work is provocative and often deals with fundamental themes, national stereotypes, taboos, sexuality, bodily functions/fluids, etc.

I don't think their work is rubbish, but that's my opinion.

Haha, they were giving away some work for free.

I wonder why?

Hmm... "We're sorry. The content you requested is available for UK users only."

ah hah..... Yeah, I thought this was really interesting, as I was watching the programme this came about from - and i would have downloaded it but that piece really does nothing for me. However I really do like some of their work quite a bit but really, that doesnt look anything other than a shitty photoshop - which it is.. but I do like the idea of it being a different way to consume and access visual art. It's a question though of the cheapening our new generation though.... especially with computers and shit anyone can do anything and distribute it but because it's so vast there's such an overload and it's harder and harder to defeniciate from shit to something that actually has value... So in effect the human race care less and less and just want to get blown.

I espoused a very similar statement with regards Andy Warhol on Saturday night. Have you noticed that rarely will someone talk about their emotional attachment to a G&G or a Warhol, but will endlessly circumvent their entrepreneurial nous? Also, both Warhol and G&G have a strong Catholic element to their work - Warhol's screen tests as confessional.

I find G&G moderately diverting; Warhol annoys me endlessly. No artist is deserved of any position, in many respects, but it doesn't concern me when the odd one gets remunderation for their efforts, whether I like their efforts or not.

Yeah, but whereas Warhol is certainly "branded" as being the guy who repeats the images, his work is much more than that. Warhol idolized Picasso. He had several phases he went through with his art.

With Gilbert & George, what we get is the early artschool installation (video & otherwise) experiments (as Tokolosh referred to) and then in the '80s they became known for doing this one certain thing. And they've just continued to do that same thing right up until the present. Look, there's no way to get around it. No matter how much they've "varied" the work internally over the years, it's still the same damn picture when one gets right down to it with the same damn philosophy of art. It's madness.

If anything, maybe we can open up a dialogue on why we feel certain artists are more-or-less insulated from the ordinary vicissitudes of the art market.
Chuck Close is another case in point. I just don't get how this guy has branded himself and stuck around all these years. It's gotta be some in$ider crap combined with the vacuum being filled with a lack of talent because no really great artist has come along in some time and there are no groups or art movements of particular note in far too long as well.

I was gonna mention Close in relation to this argument.
Total agreement.

I'm nota huge fan of their work, it just doesn't really have any effect on me. However, I like Gilbert And George themselves. They're funny. Just a pair of eccentric old men. They're harmless really.

So I should hold my horses or otherwise
call off my dogs, then?:o

I like them. At their best (which isn't reflected in something like Planed at all) they tap into that whole sacred iconography thing in such a way that I've always thought would look fantastic in some old cathedral.

Underneath the Arches

I dream my dreams away.

Underneath the arches,
On cobblestones I lay.
Ev'ry night you'll find me,
Tired out and worn.
Happy when the daylight comes creeping,
Heralding the dawn.
Sleeping when it's raining,
And sleeping when it's fine,
I hear the trains rattling by above.
Pavement is my pillow,
No matter where I stray.
Underneath the Arches
I dream my dreams away.

... and I can relate, as my job would be fucking perfect for a robot with OCD.

I wouldn't claim any great importance, meaning or longevity for their work, but I will say that when the original pieces are seen properly displayed in a gallery setting, there is a certain aesthetic attractiveness about them. I'm not especially a fan, but I'm not totally averse to the stuff either.

I too quite like Gilbert and George themselves. There was a two-part South Bank Show about them a number of years ago that was very good.

kill them.

someone started to tell me how gilbert and george were partly responsible for the steep decline in standards in british art schools, but our conversation got interupted. it wouldn't surprise me if there were some element of truth to it.

art is totally fucked these days, the art establishment needs to be destroyed. it's going to take decades and decades to set the damage straight.

If you want to accomplish that, guess where they live? On the Kingsland Road. I was telling Bunbury and Tokolosh that I had them sitting in front of me on the bus about a week and a half ago. It's your chance of making it in the art world, so throw a brick at them or something.

i don't really want to go to prison though, i'd get raped no end because i'm so pretty

Yeah, but a pretty face won't help you make it in the art world, unless you start thinking of yourself as a living work of art like Gilbert & George, innit?