Charles Thomson, Stuckist, at the Oxford Union

[MRJPPEGGETT]

Talk about emotionally distress - i think he's upset adn confused because of his life as a 'failed painter' and feels close to breaking point.

[genewatson100]

Wow, Balka looks bored.

[jalarquitecto]

Change is a wonderful thing......

[jalarquitecto]

@stuckstuckstuck

There´s enough room in the fridge for tomatoes, lettuce, milk, cheese, bread, beer and boots if you like your toes cold!!!

My contribution is that if you leave a lemon in there long enough it will become horrible mouldy and longer still it will take over the fridge and "stickstickstick" to the surfaces so that over time there will come a point where we just through the fridge out rather than clean it!

Keep ideas fresh, just like the fruit and veg

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@jalarquitecto Yes, I did have a problem with a mouldy lemon, but I think you overstate the problem. It was a fairly simple job to get rid of it, and the fridge is still in fine condition.

[jalarquitecto]

You paint like a 6 year old and stayed there! you have no dress sense, you´re so unfunny, your ALO ALO impression of a sargeant "Fact of the matter" performance is so sad, your arguments are 3rd From "stuck in mud" like every aspect of your existence, (nearly said life)

Life of course is something you will only learn about 3 seconds before you pop off your cloggs old man

VIVA! new, unusual, change, flux, movement, this, now, contemporary, modern, silliness, fun, energy, excitement, space...

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@jalarquitecto Cogent and well thought out arguments such as yours are always worth deep consideration. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to contribute to the discussion.

[hermannnitsch342d]

..Are valued above contemporary attempts to identify with artistic production and the displacement of skill within late capitalist society...Duchamp's readymade is a testament to the idea of deskilling, in an attempt to hollow out art of its moral's, because it is amoral...our perception of art changed radically with the conceptualist's, Asher, Art and Language, Kosuth extrapolated on the institution and its mechanism's along with art's connection to commerce.

[hermannnitsch342d]

(if someone says his work is art, it's art)..Judd was not a conceptualist by any means but his theorisation (Specific Object) is in part an extra-perceptual attribute i.e one would have to have identified with medium specificity and the following attempts to disrupt the separation of mediums...Thomson is trying to return to an unconditioned autonomy of art, wherein "values" that being the auratic experience of art, its originality and separation from all other types of experiences.

[hermannnitsch342d]

Although there were many flaws to Thomson's, if you will, critique...mainly that he identifies the inception of the Ready-made with that of conceptual art; it was a precursor to more and more artist's identifying strands in which had been displaced by Greenbergian rhetoric. Now, he uses the term "conceptual art" as broad as physically possibly, although it is possibly one of the most nuanced movements of the 60's. His small lecture is in fact laced with diluted quotes from Judd and other...

[hermannnitsch342d]

I argue that any return to an unconditioned autonomy of art production (i.e. neo-expressionism) would be mere pretence, lacking in historical logic and consequence.

[dustXiron]

The stuckists are anti-anti-art? Dada is anti art. Dadas are anti dada. Stuckism is modern Dada?

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@dustXiron If the Dadaists were around now, where would they be - Turner Prize nominees, having tete-a-tete with Sir Nicholas Serota and chumming up to state-sponsored "radical" orthodoxy, or outside saying what a load of crap it all is?

[dustXiron]

@Stuckstuckstuck I would certainly say they would be pissed off, but not surprised about how modern art has become accepted and actually coveted by the bourgeoisie of today, and would be outside saying what a load of crap it is. Also, they would find an innovative new way to counter the trend yet again. That is my opinion which isn't important because Dada, as a movement, is forever dead.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@dustXiron Yes, it was a particular manifestation in the conditions that prevailed at the time. The spirit of it manifests in a way that is right for the conditions of other times, whenever people are similarly pissed off.

[enlaisba]

Conceptual art is just laziness. Real art requires discipline. Everybody can create ideas, but art isn't an idea, the real piece of art just BEGINS with an idea. And more, I'm not saying that art is just painting, sculptures are art, drama is art, cinema is art, but man, a piece of shit inside a can is... well a piece of shit inside a can!! And it will never be art, is that simple

[seth2342]

@enlaisba That's nonsense. Not all conceptual art is laziness. You must not have seen very much art in your life, because I've seen some conceptual art that beats any painting by a landslide. Read more about Marcel Duchamp and maybe you'll have a stonger understanding of what your saying.

[babybear1000]

we want art not excuses, fuck boring art

[punkduck9]

@stuckstuckstuck How ignorant do you want to be? This is the problem with stuckists, if they bothered having a little read about what they claim to hate so much, they wouldn't be stuckists anymore! (Just look at the name of your movement.) It's no wonder you hate conceptual art, if I knew that little about it I'd hate it too because I wouldn't understand it. (Which, incidentally, I did but then I picked up a book.)

First of all, not all conceptual art is ready-mades.

[punkduck9]

Secondly, if we're talking about aesthtic content, sorry to be rude but give me a urinal any day over a stuckist painting because they really are god-aweful... even to look at, never mind the tragic ideas behind the work.

Thirdly the urinal, if you bothered to learn about such things, actually represents a lot of what the stuckists stand for: it was mocking the arrogance of the galleries and exhibitions.

[punkduck9]

@punkduck9 ...By submitting a urinal as a sculpture, Duchamp was question was could be seen as sculpture, but he was also testing the system itself. Initally, of course, the piece was hated as he had signed it R. Mutt (an unknown moniker); the irony being that as soon as people found out that it was in fact a Duchamp piece, they instantly loved it - which seriously put into question whether artists were being judged on their work of their name.

In future, dont post ignorant comments online.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@punkduck9

Actually there was no interest in it. Duchamp discarded it.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@punkduck9

OK, so you lack the ability to appreciate Stuckist paintings. Never mind. The point about Duchamp mocking galleries etc is made in the Stuckists Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota and elsewhere. You seem very quick to make judgements on a distinct lack of knowledge of the subject you are judging.

[punkduck9]

@Stuckstuckstuck Which is... exactly what the Stuckists do on their website? Yes I think it is. They openly declare a strong dislike of art that they, unfortunately, know very little about. The difference between conceptual art and Stuckism being that conceptual art is essentially progressive (the same kind of mentality that has led to... well every art movement ever, including Stuckism, which owes a lot to Fauvism - the more radical form of impressionism, that evolded through PROGRESS).

[punkduck9]

@punkduck9 The main issue really is Stuckism's declaration that conceptual art - as well as video art and many other, very important forms of art - aren't art. Of course they're art, art isn't just painting. That's why we call it 'art' and not... well painting. (PS. if you want to continue this debate please message me, it'll be easier to have a proper discussion that way, without these word limits.)

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@punkduck9 Well, if you can say, "Of course they're art", someone else is equally entitled to disagree with you and say, "Of course they're not art". Ah, thanks for the invite, but time presses...

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@punkduck9 I would say the Stuckists are very well informed about the art they "have a strong dislike of". "Progressive" - ah, that tired old, devalued concept of the 20th century paradigm, where progress = new = beneficial. It's a failed equation. The 21st century paradigm is one of conservation. We don't want more powerful industrial pesticides. We want organic farming. Everything owes a lot to everything that has gone before. Including learning from past mistakes (hopefully).

[CalatilySisters]

@Stuckstuckstuck Who has the distinct lack of knowledge, you or punkduck?

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@CalatilySisters I guess that would depend on what knowledge you were talking about.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@punkduck9

A number of Stuckists (including the co-founders) have made conceptual art, so the accusation of not understanding it is actually an ignorant one. It's because of understanding it that Stuckism was started.

[CalatilySisters]

@Stuckstuckstuck that is the image you put across, that the stuckists were the new understanding art movement, and critics and others were just being ignorant, since you have previously made the claim that painting was the only form of art

[Stuckstuckstuck]

@CalatilySisters Stuckists have never said they don't understand conceptual art. Quite the opposite - they understand exactly what it is, and that is the reason for dismissing it. Stuckists have never said painting is the only form of art. They have said that conceptual art isn't art.

[cprostudio]

I think duchamps vision/work was imperative to art. What the subsequent artist should have 'only' took away from duchamp is the idea that a readymade can be used for a piece of art for then the artist to manipulate or incorporate within their art.

[Saxmansamleeds]

For what is worth I do agree with a number of your stated examples, in that they do lack aesthetic quality. Is this, however, inherent to the 'conceptual art' movement?

I would surmise that an artist can pursue the methodology/produce work with aesthetic merits, that can still be defined by the artist- or a viewer- as conceptual art. It is because the aesthetic merits are subjective that I find it hard to agree with holistic judgement of stuckism- though agree with the sentiments in some cases.

[Saxmansamleeds]

The main issue I have with this argument and school of thought is the whole notion that someone can make a judgement as to what is and isn't art; something that at even face value is subjective.

The idea that any object of creation can be art allows for it to be judged and criticised as art; one may loathe all conceptual art but, in my mind, no-one has to the right to decide what is and isn't art. Conceptualism doesn't deny or restrict the judgement of other work as art; a stuckist does.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

There's nothing wrong with making a judgement on art. Everybody makes judgements on everything else all the time. You say you don't like restrictions or judgements, but that is exactly what you are doing: judging others and wishing to restrict their freedom to express their views.

[Saxmansamleeds]

I completely agree with you, judgement of art is necessary and something that should be encouraged. Whilst I do disagree with the principals of Stuckism, I don't advocate or wish to restrict their freedom to express that view.

What I do argue is that the definition 'of conceptual art' as not being art restricts judgement of the work on artistic grounds. If the work is artistically awful, which it inherently is in the view of a Stuckist, then judge it as so and comment as such...

[Saxmansamleeds]

... to say something is not art is where, in my opinion, the line between subjectivity and objectivity is crossed. Whilst criticism of any form of art is to be debated and acknowledged, the actual rejection of something as being art is deconstructive, and seems to be placing a level of objectivity and 'definition' onto something that is subjective. Contrary to restricting expression or freedom I actively encourage it- I argue that Stuckism restricts artistic criticism of work in discounting it.

[serotastinofshit]

The rejection is not deconstructive. I quote Martin Creed, conceptualist:

Artists do not make art, they make stupid objects which get used as art by human beings. I am not actually the person to ask about whether this is art because its not me that decides if something is art or not. The person asking that question should decide for themselves or should question in general the fact that certain objects are used and treated as art

Source: TateShots Issue 15 - Martin Creed @4:00

[Saxmansamleeds]

Just on a slight aside, @stuckstuckstuck I didn't say I don't like judgement on art. I said I am not sure that anyone can say with any objectivity what is or isn't art To say something is not art is almost skirting the issue of its value or lack thereof, conceptual art can be argued is not of artistic merit on subjective, artistic grounds but, from my understanding the Stuckist movement advocates that this is not art and should not be treated as such.

[Saxmansamleeds]

I would, sincerely, be interested as to why these 'works/products' shouldn't be criticised on artistic grounds- forgive me I just don't see why they cannot or should not be.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

At a certain point various people decided that a particular activity, which had not previously been categorised as art, was art - a form of art defined as conceptual art. It was so defined because it was deemed that the real artistic activity was in the ideas of the artist, rather than in the art object, which was not even necessary at all.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

If it was possible to assert this notion, it is equally possible to refute it, which is what Stuckism does, asserting that the art object itself should embody and transmit what the artist intends, and that the forming of something which did not previously exist is an essential creative act of the artist. Conceptual art presents something and then asserts this is not really what the thing is at all: it is really something else.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

If conceptual art is judged aesthetically, then of course it fails miserably, because its aesthetic content is mostly entirely absent. Duchamp's urinal has no aesthetic quality that was not present in an identical urinal, numerous examples of which already existed and none of which Duchamp has any part in creating. There is of course the signature "R. Mutt", which again lacks any great distinction.

[walveta]

What a lovely man! How well he talks! Am giggly and happy from people like that in general but am even more so from what he has to say. Call me old-fashioned and small-minded, but I do not understand how an unmade bed with tampons and condoms is great art, a statement if anything but then again a statement of what (especially what with these unmade beds springing up from every corner)

[Stuckstuckstuck]

A statement of egocentric self delusion.

[Ne1co]

video camera motor is really annoying. rest is boring

[Stuckstuckstuck]

I guess thinking is boring for you, but if the alternative is the stuff you've uploaded, I'll settle for the "boredom", thanks.

[Ne1co]

@Stuckstuckstuck no, no, thinking as such is not boring, just the type of thinking you putting forward. I hope you lost this debate, otherwise I'll take you on anytime. What is art? ask Grayson Perry

[legolisera]

You must be the biggest idiot on the planet. Please, inform youreself about reality, then art.

[Stuckstuckstuck]

Which part of the argument exactly do you disagree with and what is your counter-argument, that is if you are capable of making one, as opposed to just making insults? I see your idea of a non-idiotic video is to light a candle inside a cardboard box. I guess that says it all.

[TomHendricksMusea]

Well said.