Andy Rooney's modern art rant

The BBQ Pit
161

Van Gogh sold only one painting during his lifetime. Thomas Kincaid has sold jillions. I don’t want to live in a world where only the tacky survives. Do we have to settle for what appeals only to the average?

I wonder if Rooney has actually seen all of the works of art he comments on – or if he saw only photographs. I would think there would be a world of difference in circling Bernar Venet’s huge “Two Indeterminate Lines” and in seeing a snapshot. And seeing this piece in context with his other work over time would make a difference too. And it’s not hard for me to image that a dancer or an actor might come away with something that a writer might not.

I’ll bet Rooney thinks that Edgar A. Guest was a better poet than e.e. cummings.

162

I will point out that Least Original has twice said that all art should be funded. If private funds aren’t paying for it, public funds must be used to make up the difference.

So while what you’re saying is the real situation, there’s at least one person here arguing that any dolt should be able to say “I’m an artist,” and get $100,000 a year from the government without having to fill out an application or anything else.

163

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I will point out that Least Original has twice said that all art should be funded. If private funds aren’t paying for it, public funds must be used to make up the difference.

So while what you’re saying is the real situation, there’s at least one person here arguing that any dolt should be able to say “I’m an artist,” and get $100,000 a year from the government without having to fill out an application or anything else.
[/QUOTE]

A 100 000 dollar grant!!! that would be the price is right of the arts world!!

164

That’s got a simple answer. The purpose of scientific research is to discover knowledge and fake science will not achieve that goal. If the government told scientists to knowingly falsify their work then both the government and the scientists are guilty of malfeasance of public funds.

Art obviously is more subjective than science. There are objectively right and wrong answers in science but not in art.

165

Point the first: Art is our collective memory and the fruit of our civilization. Without art, culture withers. Without culture, there can be no nationhood; without nationhood, allegiance to the state deterioriates, democracy suffers, and the life of man is nasty, solitary, brutish, and short. To deny that government has a role in funding the arts is tantamount to suggesting that the government has no role in culture whatsoever; but culture underlies the legitimacy of the state and the history and knowledge that allows that state and the nation/s it represents to function.

Point the second: the amount spent by all levels of government on the arts is so ludicrously minuscule a share of the public purse, as was described several posts ago by comparison to the Iraq War, that making grandiose statements about those Evil Artists Taking Crusts from the Mouths of Toddlers is so all-encompassing as to require no further comment. There are so ridiculously many other truly frivolous ways in which governments spend money (or fail to properly raise it in the first place) that going after art, of all things, is like blaming someone’s twice-yearly movie ticket entirely for their failure to pay a mortgage.

On a more immediate level: the Government of Quebec, by law, reserves 1% of the budget of all new public buildings for the production of art integrated with that building. Most of Montreal’s metro stations, for example, have works of art. Among these works is a stained glass window, a non-representational piece, at Champ-de-Mars station. This work was the result of a sustained polemic between the metro’s first art director, who insisted that all the art in the metro ought to be 1) didactic and representational and 2) sponsored by donors other than the government; and the Quebec art community at the time. The latter won, and the work was paid for by the Quebec government.

This piece is the masterpiece of one of the most important Quebec artists of the twentieth century, Marcelle Ferron, a member of the most culturally significant art movement of the province, the Automatistes. They were forerunners of the Quiet Revolution, which completely altered the way of life in this province. The piece which Robert La Palme scorned for its abstraction and its appeal to government funds bears a witness of incalculable value to this period of upheaval in Quebec. It helps us to know ourselves and understand where we came from. It shows off one of our most talented artists ever.

And it is extremely beautiful, a beauty which is available free to everyone who uses that station.

166

Beats me what prices are in the art grant world. I just used Eonwe’s figure.

167

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
That’s got a simple answer. The purpose of scientific research is to discover knowledge and fake science will not achieve that goal. If the government told scientists to knowingly falsify their work then both the government and the scientists are guilty of malfeasance of public funds.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not quite that simple, although I agree that malfeasance and dishonesty are at work. The government doesn’t have to tell anybody to lie. It just has to pick and choose what to believe, publicize what it wants and avoid funding people who won’t support its conclusions.

168

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
Point the first: Art is our collective memory and the fruit of our civilization. Without art, culture withers. Without culture, there can be no nationhood; without nationhood, allegiance to the state deterioriates, democracy suffers, and the life of man is nasty, solitary, brutish, and short. To deny that government has a role in funding the arts is tantamount to suggesting that the government has no role in culture whatsoever; but culture underlies the legitimacy of the state and the history and knowledge that allows that state and the nation/s it represents to function.

Point the second: the amount spent by all levels of government on the arts is so ludicrously minuscule a share of the public purse, as was described several posts ago by comparison to the Iraq War, that making grandiose statements about those Evil Artists Taking Crusts from the Mouths of Toddlers is so all-encompassing as to require no further comment. There are so ridiculously many other truly frivolous ways in which governments spend money (or fail to properly raise it in the first place) that going after art, of all things, is like blaming someone’s twice-yearly movie ticket entirely for their failure to pay a mortgage.

On a more immediate level: the Government of Quebec, by law, reserves 1% of the budget of all new public buildings for the production of art integrated with that building. Most of Montreal’s metro stations, for example, have works of art. Among these works is a stained glass window, a non-representational piece, at Champ-de-Mars station. This work was the result of a sustained polemic between the metro’s first art director, who insisted that all the art in the metro ought to be 1) didactic and representational and 2) sponsored by donors other than the government; and the Quebec art community at the time. The latter won, and the work was paid for by the Quebec government.

This piece is the masterpiece of one of the most important Quebec artists of the twentieth century, Marcelle Ferron, a member of the most culturally significant art movement of the province, the Automatistes. They were forerunners of the Quiet Revolution, which completely altered the way of life in this province. The piece which Robert La Palme scorned for its abstraction and its appeal to government funds bears a witness of incalculable value to this period of upheaval in Quebec. It helps us to know ourselves and understand where we came from. It shows off one of our most talented artists ever.

And it is extremely beautiful, a beauty which is available free to everyone who uses that station.
[/QUOTE]

Im so happy you’re canadian too :slight_smile:

169

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Art obviously is more subjective than science. There are objectively right and wrong answers in science but not in art.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not always the case, especially in more nebulous fields like sociology or psychology. Even in the “Objective” fields, dissent is enduring and can obscure the adoption of the truth for a long time. Furthermore, so what? Even if the truth is achieved in scientific research, the end result may be unproductive. Is that science still worth doing if it generates something that inspires or elucidates?

170

[QUOTE=percussion]
now, i apoligize for the huge generalziations comming here…
Why do people like movies over art? why do they like movies over books??
Because it dosent require any sort of thinking or interpertation or anything like that its all givin to them and you sit and its told to you..thats why!!..people dont want to think, or make decisions for themselfs they want it told on the big screen…does that mean art is any better or worse than movies and should be put away and forgotten because it is not the publics favorite…i hope not…movies can run on that system, art, no way
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what your arguement is here. You seem to be saying that because ‘art’ is not popular, then it should be funded. I really do not get that arguement.
I am a lover of great art. I detest the public contraptions and shite that is publically funded and shown as public ‘art’. I do not know whether it is as bad in the USA as it is here in Australia. Based on this thread, it sounds worse.
My example would be ‘Yellow Peril’ ( Vault)

This was a reviled contraption that almost everyone hated. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2006.
The smug dickhead that made it said the reason that people hated it was that Melbourne was not culturally mature enough for it, and people do not like to be challenged.
Well many people are mature and love to be challenged, and they found Yellow Peril to be a work of shite.
This one is also shite http://allordinary2.blogspot.com/2006/06/statuary-friday-26.html
I would also like to quote Jubal again from Stranger in a Strange Land.
“Abstract design is all right —for wall paper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror. What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience. These laddies who won’t deign to do that — or can’t —lost the public.”
and
“Mmm, one does have to learn to look at art. But it’s up to the artist to use the language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don’t want to use the language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we ‘fail’ to see what they’re driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of the incompetent.”

171

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I will point out that Least Original has twice said that all art should be funded. If private funds aren’t paying for it, public funds must be used to make up the difference.

So while what you’re saying is the real situation, there’s at least one person here arguing that any dolt should be able to say “I’m an artist,” and get $100,000 a year from the government without having to fill out an application or anything else.
[/QUOTE]

Fair 'nough. I’d say any extremes in this discussion are probably going to be either based on extreme misconception about what and how the government goes about funding the arts, or about the naieve and impractical idea that anything anyone calls art is art and deserves patronage. Arguing about either extreme is going to be pretty unproductive.

[QUOTE=mrrealtime]
Any comment in this regard was made in the context of the massive scale of the art installations that involved wrapping entire island coasts in swaths of plastic sheeting. It was privately funded. In my opinion the statement was probably not as valueable as the cost of making it. That is **my personal reaction ** to the works. I did not mean to imply that ALL public funded art was depriving the poor of food. Clearly that is a ridiculous statement.
[/QUOTE]

Ok. And, you may be right; as the ‘value’ of art is not a hard and fast thing.

However, the fact that the money could have done good somewhere else has nothing to do with anything. If I go out to a fancy restaurant instead of donating my money to COTS or something, am I wasting it? Am I spending it poorly? How is it any business of yours?

172

[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
I am not sure what your arguement is here. You seem to be saying that because ‘art’ is not popular, then it should be funded. I really do not get that arguement.
I am a lover of great art. I detest the public contraptions and shite that is publically funded and shown as public ‘art’. I do not know whether it is as bad in the USA as it is here in Australia. Based on this thread, it sounds worse.
My example would be ‘Yellow Peril’ ( Vault)

This was a reviled contraption that almost everyone hated. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2006.
The smug dickhead that made it said the reason that people hated it was that Melbourne was not culturally mature enough for it, and people do not like to be challenged.
Well many people are mature and love to be challenged, and they found Yellow Peril to be a work of shite.
This one is also shite http://allordinary2.blogspot.com/2006/06/statuary-friday-26.html
I would also like to quote Jubal again from Stranger in a Strange Land.
“Abstract design is all right —for wall paper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror. What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience. These laddies who won’t deign to do that — or can’t —lost the public.”
and
“Mmm, one does have to learn to look at art. But it’s up to the artist to use the language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don’t want to use the language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we ‘fail’ to see what they’re driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of the incompetent.”
[/QUOTE]

But lots of controversial art weathers really well. You cannot anticipate how Vault will be interpreted in the future. And I think that second sculpture is really bitchin.’

Look, I am a huge fan of traditional art and I have immense resepct for the artists who can generate photorealistic scenes using only paint and canvas. But what is the line between the abstract and the concrete? What about the Impressionists? They were largely reviled in their time for not sticking to traditional fare but nobody takes them to task today. What about Picasso? His Chicago statue was initially extremely controversial but is a fixture of the city today. When you immediately cut out art you don’t like at a given moment, you know not what you destroy in the future.

173

[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
I am not sure what your arguement is here. You seem to be saying that because ‘art’ is not popular, then it should be funded. I really do not get that arguement.
I am a lover of great art. I detest the public contraptions and shite that is publically funded and shown as public ‘art’. I do not know whether it is as bad in the USA as it is here in Australia. Based on this thread, it sounds worse.
My example would be ‘Yellow Peril’ ( Vault)

This was a reviled contraption that almost everyone hated. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2006.
The smug dickhead that made it said the reason that people hated it was that Melbourne was not culturally mature enough for it, and people do not like to be challenged.
Well many people are mature and love to be challenged, and they found Yellow Peril to be a work of shite.
This one is also shite http://allordinary2.blogspot.com/2006/06/statuary-friday-26.html
I would also like to quote Jubal again from Stranger in a Strange Land.
“Abstract design is all right —for wall paper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror. What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience. These laddies who won’t deign to do that — or can’t —lost the public.”
and
“Mmm, one does have to learn to look at art. But it’s up to the artist to use the language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don’t want to use the language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we ‘fail’ to see what they’re driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of the incompetent.”
[/QUOTE]

ok, i read that as, why not make art like the movies, everyone who sees it pays admission and the artist will make big money…not so with art

second your gettingg back to the same BS that you are the one that deems what is good or bad art for the world…once you get over that the debate can kind of go on…

174

[QUOTE=percussion]
ok, i read that as, why not make art like the movies, everyone who sees it pays admission and the artist will make big money…not so with art

second your gettingg back to the same BS that you are the one that deems what is good or bad art for the world…once you get over that the debate can kind of go on…
[/QUOTE]

like..comments like “this one is also shite” no matter how cute, or aussie…doesn’t equate to anything… thats like “i hates school”

175

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
However, the fact that the money could have done good somewhere else has nothing to do with anything. If I go out to a fancy restaurant instead of donating my money to COTS or something, am I wasting it? Am I spending it poorly? How is it any business of yours?
[/QUOTE]

If you, say, as a public figure or celebrity, choose to spend 5,000,000 on a bottle of wine, then proceed to smash it into bits on TV to make some kind of “statement”, I, as a member of your audience, have every right to comment, “What a sad waste of money, it could have been put to such better use”, and perhaps go further to judge your character by your public display. You wont go to jail or be affected by my opinion, other than I probably wont buy what you are trying to sell.

176

[QUOTE=percussion]
like..comments like “this one is also shite” no matter how cute, or aussie…doesn’t equate to anything… thats like “i hates school”
[/QUOTE]

Not really understanding you too well, but I think you mean to say something about who gets to decide what is good and what is bad art.

We all get the right to react to what art we want to. If I think a pink plastic pig outside the public library is a huge waste of money because its a piece of crap, thats my reaction to the art. Someone else might come along and say “Glory to God, the greatest work ever beheld to me has just materialized before mine eyes”, and that’s their perogative.

Thinking a piece of art is a waste is part of the spectrum of reaction. If someone thinks you suck, what do you think they should do? Keep their mouth shut and ignore the fact that their tax dollars just paid your salary?

Now on VanGogh, the fact that he only sold one painting in his lifetime vs Kinkaid who sold millions has nothing to do with the arts worth. Unfortunately for VanGogh, his contemporaries didnt get his work. This doesnt mean we have to use tax dollars to fund every hairbrained putz who paints stuff no one likes Just IN Case their work might be appreciated by some currently non existent audience!

177

I think government sponsorship of the arts will produce government art. Kind of like government cheese; without taste, without individual character, but harmless, unless one tries to subsist upon it alone.

Artists should pander to the rich, as they always have, throughout the ages. Otherwise, they should stick to folk art, which will survive by its artistic merits. I would prefer seeing folk art dominate commercially viable art, but I don’t expect it much. The Internet does offer some hope in that regard, though. Finding good art on the Internet will be a challenge, though, as the sheer bulk of that previously mentioned 95% becomes truly immense.

Art that is forced on folks deserves (artistically) the fate it will receive. People don’t like shit in their faces. The remember it long enough to avoid it later. Some, like me, hold a grudge against those who foist it upon them.

But, 95% of the people find crap to be entirely acceptable, most of the time. Polyester leisure suits? Recycled fake retro art deco interiors? Yeah, no problem finding bad art.

Tris

178

[QUOTE=Eonwe]

However, the fact that the money could have done good somewhere else has nothing to do with anything. If I go out to a fancy restaurant instead of donating my money to COTS or something, am I wasting it? Am I spending it poorly? How is it any business of yours?
[/QUOTE]

Well, actually at least one Philosopher thinks you should be donating your money to charity and eating a cheaper meal at home.
Quote from wikipedia “…he argues that the injustice of some people living in abundance while others starve is morally indefensible. Singer proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate part of their income to aid poverty and similar efforts. Singer reasons that, when one is already living comfortably, a further purchase to increase comfort will lack the same moral importance as saving another person’s life. Singer himself donates 20% of his salary to Oxfam and UNICEF.”
I cannot see Peter Singer agreeing that we should spend millions of dollars on public ‘art’ while people are starving around the world. Although I have never read his particular opinion on this topic.

179

[QUOTE=percussion]
ok, i read that as, why not make art like the movies, everyone who sees it pays admission and the artist will make big money…not so with art

second your gettingg back to the same BS that you are the one that deems what is good or bad art for the world…once you get over that the debate can kind of go on…
[/QUOTE]

I never said anywhere here that I deem what is good or bad art for the world. Please try to keep up and not confuse me with others here. Everyone can have their opinion on art and movies. I never said I had the definitive answer on either.
The crucial difference is that I can choose whether I want to spend my money watching “Fast and Furious 3” or thinking I do not want my money thrown away on such shite.
I am not Australian. But I live in Australia. As far as I know ‘shite’ is not in common usage amongst most Australian people. Do you find it cute that I think your (percussion)opinions are shite ?

This debate as I see it is - Should public ‘art’ be funded by taxes? Answer -No.
If public ‘art’ was funded by taxes, shouldn’t we at least get something that the majority of people approve of ? Answer-Yes

180

[QUOTE=nameless]
But lots of controversial art weathers really well. You cannot anticipate how Vault will be interpreted in the future. And I think that second sculpture is really bitchin.’

Look, I am a huge fan of traditional art and I have immense resepct for the artists who can generate photorealistic scenes using only paint and canvas. But what is the line between the abstract and the concrete? What about the Impressionists? They were largely reviled in their time for not sticking to traditional fare but nobody takes them to task today. What about Picasso? His Chicago statue was initially extremely controversial but is a fixture of the city today. When you immediately cut out art you don’t like at a given moment, you know not what you destroy in the future.
[/QUOTE]

You are missing the point again. The point is I do not want tax money funding public ‘art’.
My opinion versus yours on ‘Yellow Peril( Vault)’ or ‘Gay Wheat (Red something)’ is peripheral. If it was core, then this discussion would be in Cafe Society like discussions of favourite movies.