Sweeny79 said:

Molest a child and call it 'art'?

So many philistines here at the Org.

You can thank the gentleman in my avatar for the "just because I say something is art, it's art" mindset. The difference is that when M. Duchamp did it was clever and he was the first one. Now everyone is just biting off of him. That's why there's so much shitty (no pun intended) art.


RE: Piss Christ--the artist's name is Andreas Serrano and I like his work. I also like Chris Burden's work.

Sometimes it's not about the end product, but about the thought behind it or the process to get there.

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Well that depends on what you're trying to "say" by shitting on a canvas. If you have some sort of intellectual or thoughtful reason behind it instead of doing it because you couldn't find a toilet then it could be art, it all depends. Ever heard of Chris Ofili? He created quite the scandal a few years ago by using elephant dung on a painting he did of the Virgin Mary.

Do you like the Impressionists? When they first started painting in that style critics HATED it and people thought it was awful, crappy art. Now people line up around the block to see that fluff. So who knows, in 100 years from now, a white piece of paper with a black dot could be tantamount to Waterlilies.

I'm surprised by your response--I'm sure people could say the same thing about funk music. "What the hell is that noise? You call that music. Please." It's all subjective and the more you know about it, the less you fear it. When I worked was a tour guide at the Museum of Contemporary Art our motto was "Fear no art, fear no visitor, fear no tour." I got yelled at by all sorts of angry people who were scared of contemporary art.

If it weren't past my bedtime I'd love to stay up and explain the nuances of contemporary art to you, but I don't want to oversleep for work.

jone70 said:

aaah, you said it all. perfect!

FunkMistress said:

jone70 said:

Yes... and they are entitled to their opinion. I don't expect everyone to like funk and I expect you to likewise realize that not everyone is going to like 'contemporary art'. I just find most contemporary art to be completely pointless.
As far as museums go, I'm more of a history kind of guy than art

The artist in this exhibit SHOULD have put the footage in some sort of context, so that people would realize where it was shot and explained a bit about what he was trying to say by using such horrible footage. That probably would've quelled some of the controversy.

I remember the first time I ever stood up to my fundamentalist parents was over an episode of "Geraldo" when I was 15. They had the exhibit "Piss Christ" on display and we're arguing over the merits of it. I told my mother that "it's art." She wasn't impressed.

FuNkeNsteiN said:

I don't expect everyone to like contemporary art; but to dismiss the majority of it as "completely pointless" is extremely short-sighted (imo). Contemporary art illustrates the history of the 20th century, just as Renaissance art provides insight into how Italians lived during the 15th & 16th centuries, or like Egyptian art shows us how that civilization lived centuries ago. You said you like history--contemporary art is showing us history. The symbolism of this history is clearly present in contemporary art, it's just that people don't learn about it and thus can't 'read' the meaning of the (contemporary) art. A lot of people just want to look at something "pretty" and not think about it; but understanding art--even the "pretty" Impressionist paintings, a Flemish still life, or a Hindu sculpture--takes mental work.

(There is a similiar problem when people view religious paintings today--people don't know the Bible stories depicted so they can't 'read' the full meaning of the painting. But to the audiences who saw those paintings at the time they were made, it was a clear as you or I reading a book. And since the majority of people were illiterate, paintings were used as a type of book. But I digress...)


.
[Edited 4/1/08 8:38am]

Sweeny79 said:

Exactly. Whether the art is "good" or "bad" is different from whether or not it's "art".

Like I said before, I think there's a lot of crappy art nowdays. It makes me sad because

a. it gives the 'good' contemporary art a bad name
b. it's just awful to look at!

It's mostly Duchamp's fault and this need to come up with something original so that the art/artist is not compared to something/one from the past ('Oh, he paints in a Pollock style', or 'her work reminds me of Cindy Sherman'). The difference was that Duchamp was brilliant enough to realize he wouldn't be a famous painter, so he changed the 'rules' and made himself into a brilliant 'artist.'

That's the paradox of contemporary art...it has to be unique and original for people (e.g. critics, galleries, museums) to take interest in it but because so much has already been "done" people do more and more outrageous things (e.g.beat animals) and call it art.

SnakePeel said:

Completely agree. Especially with contemporary art--you have to give people context or something they can latch onto in order to try and understand it.

taxpayers money have been spent on far worse things

JustErin said:

no, that's a crime.

Art is expression, not just any action. Painting a room isn't art, it's the intention of expressing something to an audience through the action of painting that makes it art.

So while yes, molesting a child could technically be art (albeit a sick art, like murder), just doing it and then passing it off as art isn't really going to hold water, any more than any house painter could hardly claim he's an artist.
[Edited 4/1/08 10:24am]

NDRU said:

How is beating animals to death any different? How is it expression? How can killing be considered art at all? Or at least, the killing of some things and not others? If this can be considered art, why stop there? I don't think you could call doing the same thing to say...a child any less of art, could you? Same so called expression just different subject.

I don't get it. This was done to shock and appall - if that's what they wanna call expression...then fine...but let's make it a free for all and start doing whatever we want in the name of "art".

JustErin said:

I think what sweeny79 and NDRU are getting at is the current distinction today between what is art and what is craft.


If you disregard the ethical nature of the content (I know it's impossible to do), is what is on exhibit delivering some type of message?
Its kind of like the chinese artist who's works are nothing but lines on canvas. It looks totally ridiculous until you know that the lines are were tape used to sit on the canvas, and the darker background is not paint but smoke pollution that peppered the canvas--a statement about the sins of industry in China.
But a series of lines some starving artist paints so that it will be hung up in a hotel room for no other reason than he needs to make money, isn't art.

Modern art, ofcourse takes this concept to an extreme and you end up with stupid shit like spots on underwear in the middle of empty rooms, etc. etc.


So I unfortunately, even though I hate and don't condone it as art, would probably concede on some level that it *is* art.

Its just not *ethical* art, and I don't support it.

JustErin said:

That's why it should have included a context so that people know what the artist is trying to say by showing this video. Is s/he saying eating meat is bad? Is it that animals are suffering? Are the animals meant to symbolize man and show mans brutality against fellow man? Or maybe it's about the classic man v. nature struggle.


And in response to how depicting killing something/someone can be considered art or something that shocks and appalls being art--one of the most popular subjects for western art shows someone being murdered:













Do those images bother you? Or are you more apt to accept that depiction of murder as "Art" because it's couched under the umbrella of "religion"?


.
[Edited 4/1/08 11:00am]

jone70 said:

Um...

We are not talking about the same things here.

A painting of a depiction of murder is not the same as video of actual murder or abuse.

Go ahead and paint, mold, draw, animate, whatever and call it art. I don’t care what is imagined - because it’s just imagination. I might not like it, might not like what it stands for - but I wouldn't say it's not art of some sort.

But the difference is that it's not actually victimizing another living thing under the guise of "art". As soon as you step into a situation where you are forcing an unwilling living thing to be part of your "art piece" it’s no longer art in my opinion. And if it can in fact be called art in come cases, then it should be called art in all cases.

JustErin said:

I wasn't defending that (and I don't think anyone else is), I'm defending stuff like crapping on a canvas.

Like I said, murder could be an art if there was some kind of statement involved, but it doesn't exclude it from being a crime. So nobody's getting away with appalling crimes just because they're artists.
[Edited 4/1/08 11:28am]

NDRU said:

It's interesting how this artist is getting exactly what he probably intended.
And that's discussion on whether his stuff is art or not.

Without us even having seen his appalling material.

Imago said:

That's the problem with that shit. They think getting a reaction means that they're stuff is really cutting edge or thought provoking. But really it's just horrible and a person like that is more like Manson than Michelangelo.

NDRU said:

yup.


Which is why I concede it may be 'art' but it ain't ethical art.
Nor good art.

Much of modern art does this for me.

I even hate Jackson Polluck's work

JustErin said:

Actually, I am talking about the *same* thing because for the most part, when those paintings of the cruxifiction were done video cameras and photography did not exist. Paintings were used to record all sorts of evil events (real and imagined) until the invention of photography took over. So although the technology may not be as advanced, it was the best they had. (And it's not limited to the cruxifiction of Christ--I just used that as an example of a popular subject matter. There are plenty of other examples of disease, death, murder, war, etc. in art: The Death of Marat, Guernica, The Fifth of May, The Raft of the Medusa, The Last Judgement, Laocoon, etc.)

So if the artist made a painting based on a screen cap of the actual video, would you be fine with it? It's not showing you the action in live time, but it's still re-presenting a disturbing event.

NDRU said:

Oh, I thought this thread about this video...not shit on a piece of paper.

And this guy/or group of people can get away with this because it's "just animals". That's why I think it's so wrong. To even attempt to call this art is ridiculous.

Those who can...create art

Those who cannot...create "modern" art

Dance said:

Typical response. Have you ever tried to paint a "Pollock" or do a cubist painting as well as Braques or Picasso? Or come up with the idea to hang a bottle rack from the ceiling? Just because it looks like a 5 year could do it doesn't mean it's easy and if it is that easy, then why didn't you think of it first?

Imago said:

Exactly. What's that saying, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

Imago said:

Have you ever seen a Pollock painting in person? I was never that crazy about his paintings until I saw them at MoMA. I love them! I could sit and look at them for hours!

If you ever visit New York I will even take you to MoMA myself so you can experience their greatness firsthand!

jone70 said:

Nope, it's not the same thing. Documenting an event is not the same as creating an event in the name of art. Think about recreating an event on video and actually murdering the subject to depict the scene. Would that be an acceptable form of art?

JustErin said:

You're right, but the thread took a turn into the "what is art" question.

I actually don't know that this guy can or will get away with this stuff. They canceled his show, and maybe it's actually evidence of animal abuse. It's a crime on tape. He's not only a bad artist, but quite probably a moron.

JustErin said:

Exactly, as the initial article said animal rights groups have no real objection to cruelty being depicted in art to highlight what goes on in slaughterhouses, for example. But the artist is not creating the cruelty, they're shining a light on it, just as the painters didn't crucify Jesus they're depicting the event to make a statement.
[Edited 4/1/08 11:57am]

jone70 said:

I do
I hate it

I'd rather watch a House Party movie than go to an exhibit of his

Oh and Jone70, I would love to do that with you despite my ...erm... opinions on his stuff




I saw a work of his at the Musee' Dorsee' (sp?) in Paris I believe.