[ceenda]

quote:

---

A SOILED BED?? I mean come on...

That artist can shit on his sheets all he wants and call it art

---

His?

Hehe, as I recall, the artist was a girl.

[LinaBo]

yeah, and wasn't it a bedroom scene containing used condoms and underwear and an unmade bed?

in any case, that's just disgusting.

[Steven Stahlberg]

A friend of mine (who's been studying for like a decade at different art institutions in Sweden) told me, when we had this discussion a couple years ago, that what's art and not art is decided by the community of art critics and artists together, in a sort of global Wall Street of art - NOT by the layman. Thumbs up by the experts, and it's art. Big thumbs up, and it's expensive art. This of course then comes down to 'marketing' and 'image' (and perhaps a bit of content), much like in the music world.

My friend also said: if mr Joe Average should make these decisions himself, it would be like telling your doctor you know what medication you should take better than he, or trying to defend yourself in court without a lawyer... ...so THAT part's not at all like the music world...

I don't know, he might have a point... but I still think this blinking lamp thing is fraud.

[aquamire]

I really quite disagree with that Steven, I think the layman is the person who decides what art is, otherwise you just constrict it to a few people who usually have far to huge of egos. I think if an ordinary person can hang a piece in their home and be proud to hang it there, than it has to have some value, it speaks to that person. These "critics" who decide what art is nowadays are so.. ugh.. dumb, and greedy, they ought to go start a pop band.

<edit>
A thought just came to mind. Art isnt like medicine, its made to give an impression of an artists vision onto a people, not to cure a people of a disease. If that impression can only be read by a select few "Critics" I think that piece of art has failed miserably in communicating to people, and has only been made for critics who will do nothing but glorrify bad art and call it good because its bad, like its a fashion fad, and increase the artists ego and decrease any talent they might of had.
</edit>

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: aquamire ]

[Ahcri]

I agree with Steven. If an ordinary person were to decide that a good art is what he would be proud to hang in his home, then the only acceptable art will be landscape or portrait oil paintings on canvas. I can see that most people would buy a "Starry Night" poster in their house rather than getting a painting in similar style for free.

Art has changed.. it's not only about aesthetics anymore. And I think only the art critics or art historians had realized that. Of course, there will be art critics saying this blinking light installation is good, and some saying this is crap. If they can support their opinion with good reasons, then that's good enough for me.

[burn0ut]

someone needs to go tag that room up.
then its art.

[roundeye]

word, burnout. lemme rephrase my assersion to fit stevens friend satement... art is defined by its target audience. if you make art for artists and critics, then its they who validate it. the more elitist and confined the circle(jerk) of people, then the fewer that can say its art. but can a snooty artfag critic determine what toronto graffiti is art(for example), and what is mere vandalism? no, simply because it wasnt made for them, theyre not the target audience. just a thought...

[aquamire]

Hmm, good point Roundeye. It all depends on target audience. Though Im not sure what the point of art for artists and critics would really show other than technical aspects. A lot of what you see on these forums wouldnt be liked by a lot of "layman" people, but we like it because we understand its craft.

<edit> I answered my own question. What the hell have I been eating lately? Im not making much sense lately.</edit>

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: aquamire ]

[LinaBo]

hey, they can praise themselves to boost their egos, and convince themselves that they have talent, I couldn't care less. But if it's intended target is their small group of artists/critics, then why does it even go to the press? Because as soon as it does, the common people are entitled to their opinions.

And also...as soon as anyone starts forking over any of the taxpayers' (laymen's) money for this kind of garbage, then I'm pretty sure it becomes the laymen's business.

[roundeye]

bravo, LinaBo.

[Steven Stahlberg]

quote

Quote:

a snooty artfag critic

LOL
Also that remark about 'target audience' was very good. Spot on.

I don't know, I guess I'm just jealous, that bloody moron is probably going to waste the 20k sterling on wild parties and a car, and perhaps some more idiotic installations. [sigh]

[J Bradford]

i think that 20k is about as far as it will go for his earnings. completely unoriginal installations like that don't stay in the spotlight for very long. especially that crap.

[travis travis]

"Film-maker Julien was in the running for his video of gay cowboys in a swimming pool. "


Pshhhh. Shock crap certainly is the worst element of modern art. I mean more then anything shock smacks of desperation - a person can't get your attention by any skill and thusly they turn to the lowest of gimmickry.

I admit, I do have a sort of jonses for real life magnified, isolated, that sort of thing... but I mean, I don't think the modern art movement as a whole embodies much of that. It's more a sleezy, incompetent, deluded view that you can just do anything and be an artist. And that sort of artist is so redundant right now... I mean modern art is more like the result of the modern yuppie society wanting to be an artist. Not meaning you have to be well off, but just kind of that it stems from a consumeristic, stupid society where everyone pursues any dream with glee regardless of their appropriateness, or what they have to bring to a skill.

[Affected]

Somehow it seems to me a lot of modern "art" (I do still hate that pretentious carcass of a word) is about communication, all right, but the subject isn't the world around us, it's "art" itself. I think that's wasteful.

[Ben Barker]

I enjoy art because looking at a good piece of it is like looking at a piece of the artist's skill. Art is a profession, and deserves professional behavior. I resent when someone is rewarded for a hoax like this, because it influences the popular opinion of what art is, and cheapens the image of what artists are.

Art is not whatever we say it is. There is bad art just like there is bad writing, bad philosophies, and bad medicine. There are canons of proportion, style, composition, and taste that should be respected. They are guidelines, not restrictions. Creating original, powerful art within those guidelines is the goal good artists should achieve. It's far greater an accomplishment then causing an emotional response at the cost of all dignity and respect for your trade.

I think we are on the verge of a revolution, a revival of the humanist traditions that were abandoned in the early 20th century. Then we can put the travesty of the New York "avant garde" behind us. They have exploited and defaced the image of art for over 50 years. It's time for a change.

[Torstein Nordstrand]

Note: Long post, bear with me...

Hmm...

There's a nice gallery here in Aberdeen with a few high quality traditional pieces. They even got the much praised Sargent represented. I've already spent many hours there, watching one single picture in particular. It's a portrait by Sir Henry Raeburn, and watching it I feel like I am falling backwards into an emotional pit. It completely crushes me, to see such unbeliavably simple complexity, I can't take my eyes from it. Same goes for a few Pre-Raphaelite pieces as well. I just have to sit down and gawk, trying to comprehend, but it's so complete... I get shivers even thinking about this.

About a year ago I was on a contemporary art exhibition in Norway. As young art students do, we spent a lot of time laughing at ridiculous, completely uninteresting, virtually thoughtless installations. For instance, in one booth there was a tv screen showing a video of nude persons with amputated limbs going up stairs whistling, or washing their hair, all this while another nude person "stepped in" with their own limb doing the task the amputeed one should. So if a stair-climbing guy was without a leg, the other person would go behind him, using his leg in it's place. If a woman was washing her hair in the shower, another person would be "the other arm", doing the same natural movements. They all looked like it was common practice.

You know what? I couldn't take my eyes of it. My fellows smirked and raced past it, but something had hit me. I was completely dumbstruck, and I felt really bad, as if I had lost all sympathy with the world or something. I really wanted to split and hide to escape my shame, but I had this sincere feeling of awakening. I had to stay, to feel. It was a nightmare that felt like a dream.

Maybe that piece struck with me because I can be quite the cynic (divorced parents, all that), I don't know. But after that tremendous impact, I've been a little more open-minded to these sorts of things.

The way I understand these new ways of "art" is that one cannot plan on success. All one can do is produce what feels sincere and right for oneself. If people like it or not doesn't matter. Just give of yourself in a way that you can. The world will react if they please, if they can. Just do your best.

I don't think people looking at Titian thinking it's quite 'pretty' and 'big' should have any more authority in the "what is art" matter than those that dig Creed's rooms thinking it's 'fun' and 'interesting'.

[Tiger Eaten]

<whispering through his teeth>
"I can't believe they fell for it!"

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tiger Eaten ]

[Frost]

"Film-maker Julien was in the running for his video of gay cowboys in a swimming pool. " -- DAMN! Why didn't *I* think of that!! Move over Batman-in-a-thong! Here comes the REAL stuff!

"I create therefore I am. Now where's my money?" - a made up quote from a made up artist.

[Blade]

haha you know why he won? Look at how many of you posted about this already, imagine all those people there looking at it, artists themselves or not it generated the most controversey thats why it won. It seems to be doing the same thing here, so the piece he did does what he set out for it to do, generate controversey wether you like the exhibit or not it's generating some sort of emotion from you.
Now if you want to say what is art then please tell me because so far I haven't heard of any philosopher getting it just right.

[roundeye]

first of all it was started in december. second volume of response dosent validate art. rape a child and call it art. think of all the controversy, oh my!

[edraket]

I saw an installation just like this a few months ago. It might even have been from the same guy. It was quite powerfull to tell you the truth.
You guys can all sit here and judge it but it's not like you have the slightest idea what its like to be in that room.

It's the same as me saying..who is that Sargent guy anyways? I have never heard of him before. And what I see of his work on the internet is not very impressive. Not to speak about the fact that it was created 200 years later than you would expect from the pictures.

Well you all know it doesn't work that way. You can't judge someones work from a thumnail on the internet and without knowing anything about his history.

This IS what art has come to. In it's need to renew it has come to nothing.
And as these things go a counterreaction will probably arise much like what Ben Barker was talking about.
But for that to succeed the people that are hot on it will have to look beyond having painting skills and think of something that actually has depth.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: edraket ]

[ceenda]

Hmn... odd.

I think I know what's happened. I referred to this thread on another forum as an archive and maybe it got interpreted as a current post (easy when it's a direct link to the post).

Interesting comments though.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: ceenda ]

[klaivu]

Art reflects the 'soul' of it's time ?
All that is worthwhile is this and mtv .. pick either one.