They call it art

True anyone can call anything art.....It strikes me as humorous if you have ever been to a gallery opening, how many elites stand around looking at art, some beautiful works, some well.. not sure what it is, but no one there has the guts to say. They follow along like sheep needing to be accepted by other elites, so they say how "interresting and layered it all is". And walk away feeling good about themselves because they have impressed other elites.

I don't care if someone pees on their finger and calls it art, as long as Im not forced to pay for it. Especially when crucifixes are immersed upside down in vats of urine. Let private funding pay for that.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Okay, I'm going out in the yard, find a dry dog turd, spray paint the thing metal flake gold and tie a red ribbon around it.

Hey CivilLiberty - if you'll let me have your mailing address, I'd love to send you some "art". Offer is good to you too Gem.



No thanks, I'm not interested in scatological art - but hey, if you create a body of work like that over 20 years or so, you might make it into a museum.


:poop:


Regards,


A
 
Merlin1047 said:
P, I'm sorely disappointed at your lack of knowledge of the art world. You can't just get a pile of poo and put it on a piece of paper and call it art. Everybody knows that. Before you can call it art, you have to invite a bunch of snooty, stuffed shirt liberal diletantes over for a wine and cheese soiree'. After they have oohed and aahed over the shit for fifteen minutes, THEN you can call it art.
.


No, you call it art when an art collector is willing to pay for it...


A
 
CivilLiberty said:
No, you call it art when an art collector is willing to pay for it...


A


Not so. You can call it art when the Federal Government gives you a grant as an artist in order that you can feed yourself while you make it. (Or buy art supplies, whichever is the case.)
 
Bonnie said:
True anyone can call anything art.....

True only in a way - in reality, you have to have "standing" in the art world for you statement to mean much.

Duchamps created a very large body of work, and had "standing" (i.e. respect) before creating that work. And the influential aspect of "Fountain" is not that is a urinal, but that it was a common item, help up "as art".

The art is that it is being called art, not that it is art.

This was the influential statement, because once you concede the art of a common item, you concede that any human creation can be art. This concept has become the cornerstone of many art movements since, in particular, post modernism, which has shaped the world we now live in on a daily basis.

This is why "Fountain" is an influential piece of art.


Bonnie said:
It strikes me as humorous if you have ever been to a gallery opening, how many elites stand around looking at art, some beautiful works, some well.. not sure what it is, but no one there has the guts to say.

I say. When to a gallery once a few years ago, and pretty clearly said "This is crap" to which I get more than a few chuckles...

Bonnie said:
They follow along like sheep needing to be accepted by other elites, so they say how "interresting and layered it all is". And walk away feeling good about themselves because they have impressed other elites.

I don't care if someone pees on their finger and calls it art, as long as Im not forced to pay for it. Especially when crucifixes are immersed upside down in vats of urine. Let private funding pay for that.


I believe "piss-christ" was not upside down, but upside up in that urine.

It *is* art, but it is *not* art though I would ever buy or collect. Or create. Not interested.


And we should not be paying for it - no doubt, tax dollars should NOT be used in this way. An artist should be free to create whatever they please, but I have a problem with taxpayers subsidizing the work.




Regards,

Andy
 
JOKER96BRAVO said:
This cd cover was created with urine and cows blood
pressed between two pieces of glass


That's cool...


Someone dropped a 1 foot cube of Lexan into the LaBrea tar pits. The art is that you know it's down there...


A
 
CivilLiberty said:
True only in a way - in reality, you have to have "standing" in the art world for you statement to mean much.

Duchamps created a very large body of work, and had "standing" (i.e. respect) before creating that work. And the influential aspect of "Fountain" is not that is a urinal, but that it was a common item, help up "as art".

The art is that it is being called art, not that it is art.

This was the influential statement, because once you concede the art of a common item, you concede that any human creation can be art. This concept has become the cornerstone of many art movements since, in particular, post modernism, which has shaped the world we now live in on a daily basis.

This is why "Fountain" is an influential piece of art.




I say. When to a gallery once a few years ago, and pretty clearly said "This is crap" to which I get more than a few chuckles...




I believe "piss-christ" was not upside down, but upside up in that urine.

It *is* art, but it is *not* art though I would ever buy or collect. Or create. Not interested.


And we should not be paying for it - no doubt, tax dollars should NOT be used in this way. An artist should be free to create whatever they please, but I have a problem with taxpayers subsidizing the work.




Regards,

Andy

Well there we agree, complete freedom of artistic expression with private donations and funding..works for me.

The notion that art is only influencial if the artist has been deemed influencial in their own right, by their peers really says a lot about the whole artistic community foundation as being very weak then? Isn't that similar to saying that the U.S. dollar is only as good as what Japan or Germany says it is?
 
Civil Liberty:

"Piss Christ" was, indeed, an upside-down crucifix immersed in a jar of urine.

I really felt special paying my taxes THAT year.
 
I'll do a bit more research on this, but I clearly remember a hoax perpetrated on the New York artistic community some years back. It involved all of the important art afficianados being invited to view the works of an exciting new painter. Their enthusiastic approval was unanimous - all of these people with "standing". They remarked on the innocence - the playful splashes of color - the pure genius of the artist. Then the artist was introduced.

It was a monkey.

Be sure to file your tax returns on time, now.
 
CivilLiberty said:
That's a pretty drawing, and sure it's art.

But it's not even remotely "influential".

The point of Duchamps work is not the subject matter, but the statement it mad e and the resultant impact on the world of art that resonated even today through post-modernism.

The article cited in this thread is not talking about pretty art, or nice art, or popular art, or art for dentist offices. The article is talking about influential art, that is, art that has a profound influence on other artists and art movements.


Regards,


Andy


The pretty art influences me to be civil....You incite the obscenities to come out.
 
CivilLiberty said:
No, you call it art when an art collector is willing to pay for it...
A

Aha. So art collectors are the arbiters of what is and what is not art.

I'm so glad that I have some elitist ass to make that determination for me. Otherwise I might just go around thinking that a signed pisser was just garbage and not art.
 
musicman said:
I'll do a bit more research on this, but I clearly remember a hoax perpetrated on the New York artistic community some years back. It involved all of the important art afficianados being invited to view the works of an exciting new painter. Their enthusiastic approval was unanimous - all of these people with "standing". They remarked on the innocence - the playful splashes of color - the pure genius of the artist. Then the artist was introduced.

It was a monkey.

Be sure to file your tax returns on time, now.

LOL - made monkeys out of that bunch, didn't it.

Here's one that I remember - some years ago, the National Endowment for the Arts (tax money rathole) awarded a $500 grant for a poem. I remember the poem and can quote it word for word. Here it is:

Liggggghhhht.

That's it. The whole enchilada. Five hundred bucks worth. Took me 2 seconds to type. That's an hourly rate of $900,000.00.

Now I probably didn't get the number of g's and h's right.

That's because I'm not very artistic.

Wonder if some art collector bought it.

Or if the monkey wrote it to begin with.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Aha. So art collectors are the arbiters of what is and what is not art.

I'm so glad that I have some elitist ass to make that determination for me. Otherwise I might just go around thinking that a signed pisser was just garbage and not art.


Don't be so close minded Merlyin. If you stare at it long enough, it may just stare back. :)
 
CivilLiberty said:
No thanks, I'm not interested in scatological art - but hey, if you create a body of work like that over 20 years or so, you might make it into a museum.


:poop:


Regards,


A

Just a damn minute. I don't do scatological stuff. This was crapological art. You don't even know the difference.

And you call yourself educated. You don't know shit from shinola.
 
wow, all this over a urinal. Kinda neat really. I guess not only is beauty in the eye of the beholder but so is art!
 
Bonnie said:
The notion that art is only influencial if the artist has been deemed influencial in their own right, by their peers really says a lot about the whole artistic community foundation as being very weak then? Isn't that similar to saying that the U.S. dollar is only as good as what Japan or Germany says it is?


The US dollar IS only as good as the world currency market makes it, so yes.



A
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top