Terence Koh's statue of Christ

[jillian]

What's artistic about shocking and offending? I think if the purpose is the latter, it really can't be much of the former since it is not driven by inner expression alone; rather, it's driven by a political desire to shock and offend.

Art has often been political. I don't think much of Koh's work, but obviously, I wouldn't stop his doing it either.

 

[maineman]

What's artistic about shocking and offending? I think if the purpose is the latter, it really can't be much of the former since it is not driven by inner expression alone; rather, it's driven by a political desire to shock and offend.

so...art really is just pretty flowers eh? I notice you didn't address the two works I mentioned. Clearly, they are not purdy to you...

and if art were only about inner expression, artist would not make a living creating art.

 

[Gunny]

Art has often been political. I don't think much of Koh's work, but obviously, I wouldn't stop his doing it either.

I do not suggest stopping him from doing it. I merely expressed my opinion.

 

[jillian]

I do not suggest stopping him from doing it. I merely expressed my opinion.

As is your right.

As my late grandfather used to say "great country America".

 

[Gunny]

so...art really is just pretty flowers eh? I notice you didn't address the two works I mentioned. Clearly, they are not purdy to you...

and if art were only about inner expression, artist would not make a living creating art.

Since art is subjective, what's your point? You have your take, I have mine. I expressed my opinion of his so-called art. Anybody wants to look at a statue with a hardon, knock yourself out.

 

[maineman]

Since art is subjective, what's your point? You have your take, I have mine. I expressed my opinion of his so-called art. Anybody wants to look at a statue with a hardon, knock yourself out.

I have no problem with your disapproving of his artwork...I only question your categorically stating it was not ART simply because it does not please you.

 

[Gunny]

I have no problem with your disapproving of his artwork...I only question your categorically stating it was not ART simply because it does not please you.

IMO, it is not art. It's a tasteless statue. If you or anyone else wants to think it's art, I most certainly do not and would not attempt to deny you that right.

 

[jillian]

IMO, it is not art. It's a tasteless statue. If you or anyone else wants to think it's art, I most certainly do not and would not attempt to deny you that right.

Well, of course it's art. You just think it's *bad* art.

 

[Gunny]

Well, of course it's art. You just think it's *bad* art.

Of course YOU think it's art. I think it's garbage. *Bad* art would be a few notches above THAT.

 

[jillian]

Of course YOU think it's art. I think it's garbage. *Bad* art would be a few notches above THAT.

Actually, I think it's pretty gross and pointless and it wouldn't be anything I'd be interested in seeing... BUT...

It is common in the history of art for people to dispute whether a particular form or work, or particular piece of work counts as art or not. In fact for much of the past century the idea of art has been to simply challenge what art is. Philosophers of Art call these disputes “classificatory disputes about art.” For example, Ancient Greek philosophers debated about whether or not ethics should be considered the "art of living well". Classificatory disputes in the 20th century included: cubist and impressionist paintings, Duchamp’s Fountain, the movies, superlative imitations of banknotes, propaganda, and even a crucifix immersed in urine. Conceptual art often intentionally pushes the boundaries of what counts as art and a number of recent conceptual artists, such as Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin have produced works about which there are active disputes. Video games and role-playing games are both fields where some recent critics have asserted that they do count as art, and some have asserted that they do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

 

[Gunny]

Actually, I think it's pretty gross and pointless and it wouldn't be anything I'd be interested in seeing... BUT...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

There you go. Thanks for supporting my argument. I don't consider it art. You can consider it whatever you please. It's common in history, so we aren't even having a new argument.

 

[Shogun]

Ain't that the truth.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bruce/bruce.html

"What does it mean to be found obscene in New York? This is the most sophisticated city in the country....If anyone is the first person to be found obscene in New York, he must feel utterly depraved."
--Lenny Bruce, after his conviction for obscenity in New York's
Cafe Au Go Go trial. [CONTINUED...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce

Lenny Bruce granted posthumous pardon
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/12/23/bruce.pardon.ap/index.html