This is definitely modern art where we don’t need the “My three year old could do that better”
Others have pointed out already that you have misunderstood the rest of the article, but even the brief passage you quoted doesn’t say what you claim it does. “The only dance moment of note occurred when, side by side, each held a balance on one foot while using the sole of the raised foot to hold the dildo in place” is obviously the writer snarking on this performance. He’s saying that this section of the performance barely even qualifies as “dance” because the most impressive dance step it included was standing on one foot.
FWIW this performance didn’t take place in Manhattan either – the article says it was in Brooklyn.
The writer is obviously okay with the basic idea of nakedness in dance, and if you aren’t then the title of the article should have given you enough information to know to avoid it. But his description of “Pâquerette” makes it clear that he doesn’t think it was a performance piece that fell a little short of perfection but rather that he found it to be pretentious and silly.
Tip of the hat to Czarcasm.
It would have been cool if they had, and it was with those really big ones, and then had “artistic assistants” work the handle back and forth to “crack the nuts”.
This got my attention. Two performers were sodomizing themselves with dildos on stage and the critical response is a blase “eh, it’s been done”? Clearly the NY art world is even stranger than I had imagined.
So I read the article and you’re right. Macaulay’s point is that nakedness in performance art has become common place and artists can no longer use it for mere shock value. Nudity is now the moral equivalent of the color green - it’s not inherently good or bad, it’s just an element that can work or not work in the overall piece depending on how it’s used.
That would take an awfully big dong to risk injuring my head. I’m not a snob; I sit in the cheap seats.
You actually said that without a trace of irony.
Perfect. Just wonderful. You get the award for the day. You are officially the Most Clichéd Art Snob.
Now, for the Grand Prix, tell us all how some complete unknown is the next Warhol.
(It’s that or you’re an utter failure at communicating using the English language.)
The dildo shovers seem far more interesting.
At least the dildos might make right turns depending on how they’re laying and what their internal anatomy can teach us about over-indulgence.
:: pinches Qin Shi’s adorable little cheek ::
You’re right, it’s not hard to guess. Warhol is the postmodern artist par excellence. He is largely responsible for dragging prefab objects into high art and has duly been given the credit by the postmodern critical establishment. The postmodern in art is obsessed with deconstructing and reconstructing popular culture.
You’re a melted Dali clock.
If you don’t count Duchamp.
I did say largely and not completely. Anyway, Duchamp has a nice French name so of course (post?)modern art snobs love him.
This is the legacy of Duchamp and Warhol. Fontaine’s Dildo Washer. You don’t have to take my word for it.
both this and Nascar involve handling stick and fancy footwork; not so different.
Sounds like the dildo thing only lasted ten minutes: NASCAR they drive around all damn day.
What if I want to listen to Country music and watch Nascar whilst having a dildo shoved up my arse? Won’t someone think of the… well, whatever the word for that particular combination is.
And no, I’m not going to Google it.
If you spell “ass” as “arse”, you don’t watch NASCAR nor listen to country music.
I’d rather spend several hours watching pretentious hacks shove dildos up their asses than do any of those things.
NASCAR? Seriously?
Incidentally, I think Norman Rockwell was a genius.
He was poassibly a genius as an illustrator and a commercial artist, and perhaps as a propagandist. I don’t really consider him a genius as an artist.